Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway Notices of Requirement

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway

Notices of Requirement for Designations Territorial Authority Recommendation Report

May 2019

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Appointments...... 1 1.2 Context ...... 1 1.3 The Notices of Requirement ...... 1 1.4 Project Description...... 2 1.5 Project Construction ...... 3 1.6 Detailed Design, Management Plans and Outline Plans ...... 5 1.7 Other Resource Consents, Authorisations or Approvals ...... 8 2.0 Prehearing Process ...... 9 2.1 Affected Parties/Stakeholders ...... 9 2.2 Section 92 Further Information Request ...... 9 2.3 Public Notification ...... 10 2.4 Submissions ...... 10 2.5 Pre-Hearing Minutes ...... 11 3.0 Hearing and Post-Hearing Steps ...... 11 3.1 The Hearing ...... 11 3.2 Post-Hearing ...... 12 4.0 Statutory Framework (section 171(1)) ...... 13 4.1 Relevant RMA Instruments ...... 13 4.1.1 Traffic and transport ...... 14 4.1.2 Noise and vibration ...... 15 4.1.3 Social ...... 15 4.1.4 Landscape and visual amenity ...... 15 4.1.5 Natural character ...... 16 4.1.6 Historic heritage and archaeology ...... 16 4.1.7 Indigenous biodiversity ...... 16 4.1.8 Tangata whenua values and interests ...... 16 4.1.9 Network utilities and affected properties ...... 17 4.1.10 Natural hazards ...... 17 4.1.11 Stormwater, erosion and sediment control ...... 17 4.2 Other Statutes ...... 17 4.2.1 Land Transport Management Act 2003 ...... 17 4.2.2 Rangitane o Manawatū Claims Settlement Act 2016...... 18 4.2.3 Rangitane Tu Mai Ra (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-a Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017 ...... 19 4.2.4 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 ...... 19 4.2.5 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 ...... 19 4.2.6 Wildlife Act 1953 ...... 19 4.2.7 Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act 1977 ...... 20 4.3 Other Strategic and Planning Documents ...... 20 4.3.1 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) ...... 20 4.3.2 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) ...... 20 4.3.3 Horizons Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP)...... 20 4.3.4 Horizons Regional Pest Management Strategy 2017 -2037 (PMS)...... 20 4.3.5 Manawatū River Leaders Accord 2010 ...... 20 4.3.6 Growing Manawatū – MDC Economic Growth Strategy ...... 20 4.3.7 Te Āpiti Masterplan ...... 21 4.3.8 Iwi Management Plans ...... 21 5.0 Application of Section 171 ...... 21 5.1 Established Existing Environment (section 171(1)) ...... 21 5.1.1 Traffic and transport ...... 21

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

5.1.2 Noise and vibration ...... 22 5.1.3 Social ...... 23 5.1.4 Landscape and visual amenity ...... 23 5.1.5 Natural character ...... 24 5.1.6 Historic heritage and archaeology ...... 24 5.1.7 Indigenous biodiversity ...... 24 5.1.8 Tangata whenua values and interests ...... 25 5.1.9 Network utilities and affected properties ...... 26 5.1.10 Natural hazards ...... 26 5.2 Assessment of Effects (section 171(1))...... 26 5.2.1 Traffic and transport ...... 26 5.2.2 Noise and vibration ...... 29 5.2.3 Social ...... 31 5.2.4 Landscape and visual amenity ...... 33 5.2.5 Natural character ...... 34 5.2.6 Historic heritage and archaeology ...... 37 5.2.7 Indigenous biodiversity ...... 37 5.2.8 Tangata whenua values and interests ...... 43 5.2.9 Network utilities and affected properties ...... 45 5.2.10 Natural hazards ...... 51 5.2.11 Stormwater, erosion and sediment control ...... 51 5.3 Consideration of Alternatives (section 171(1)(b)) ...... 52 5.4 Reasonably Necessary for Achieving Objectives (section 171(1)(c)) ...... 53 5.5 Other Relevant Matters (section 171(1)(d)) ...... 56 6.0 Overall Findings ...... 56 6.1 Section 171(1) and 171(1)(d) ...... 56 6.2 Section 171(1)(b) ...... 58 6.3 Section 171(1)(c) ...... 58 6.4 Part 2 RMA ...... 58 7.0 Recommendations to NZTA ...... 60 7.1 Recommendation ...... 60 7.2 Reasons ...... 60

Schedule A: Recommended Conditions

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Appointments [001] We, Paul Rogers (Chair), Rob van Voorthuysen, Judith Makinson and Miria Pomare acting under delegated authority from the Palmerston North City Council, (PNCC) the Manawatū District Council (MDC) and the Tararua District Council (TDC) have been appointed to consider and make recommendations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) upon three notices of requirement issued by the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA). 1.2 Context [002] Closure of SH3 through the Manawatū Gorge has created significant disruption for travellers between the regions of Manawatū/Whanganui in the west and the Tararua District, Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay in the east, and for the people living in and around Ashhurst and Woodville.

[003] From its opening in 1872 the road through the Gorge provided a vital transport connection. Before it closed in April 2017 it carried around 7,600 vehicles per day. It was also an important national freight link, connecting the logistic hub in Palmerston North with the Tararua District, Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay. It was used by many freight vehicles and other travellers making longer journeys up and down the North Island.

[004] Traffic between east and west has since diverted to Saddle Road and the Pahiatua Track. As well as significantly increasing travel times, associated increases in vehicle operating costs are estimated to be more than $22 million per annum. Closure of the Gorge Road has had a serious impact on traffic safety. The alternative routes wind through challenging terrain. They are not designed to accommodate large volumes of State Highway traffic.

[005] As a result, crashes on Saddle Road and the Pahiatua Track have increased. Cyclists have been advised not to use the Pahiatua Track (which is part of the New Zealand Cycle Trail Touring Route). Further, a large influx of trucks and other traffic through Ashhurst has adversely affected amenity values in that community.

[006] David Randal, legal counsel for NZTA, in his opening submissions noted that the closure of the Gorge Road has diverted 7600 vehicles per day (and rising) to alternate routes that are not fit for purpose; Saddle Road in particular and the Pahiatua Track are steep, narrow, and winding roads that are inappropriate for a permanent SH3 connection, in terms of safety, resilience, and efficiency of travel. Unsurprisingly he said this diversion has had serious social, economic and environmental impacts on nearby residents and the wider region, including in terms of crashes on the alternate routes. He detailed costs for freight operators other motor vehicle users and cyclists. 1.3 The Notices of Requirement [007] NZTA is a Requiring Authority under s167 of the RMA1. It has issued three Notices of Requirement2 (the NOR) seeking a Designation within the PNCC District Plan, the MDC Plan, and the TDC District Plan. It seeks to enable the project named Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway (the Project).

[008] The Project relates to a replacement road connecting the Manawatū-Whanganui and Wairarapa/Hawke’s Bay regions following the indefinite closure, in April 2017, of the Gorge Road due to major slips in April 2017 and ongoing geotechnical instability.

1 Requiring Authority status was granted via an order in Council dated 7 December 1992 with subsequent Gazette notices on 10 December 1992, 3 March 1994 and 19 November 2015. 2 Notice of Requirement for Designations volume 1: RMA forms.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[009] The Project is further defined within the NORs as the construction, operation, use, maintenance and improvement of approximately 11.5km of new State Highway connection between Ashhurst and Woodville.

[010] Within the PNCC district the location to which the relevant NOR applies is generally described as an area of land extending from the southern embankment of the existing SH3 (Napier Road) Manawatū River Bridge, following the alignment of the existing SH3 route for a short distance to the intersection with the existing SH57 before extending east across the existing Manawatū Gorge walkway car park and across the Manawatū River. The legal description of the land subject to the NOR is detailed within the NOR.

[011] For the MDC the location to which the relevant NOR applies is generally described as an area of land extending from the Manawatū River, at a point directly east of Moutere/Parahaki Island (which is at the rivers confluence with the Pohangina River), northwards across river terraces towards Saddle Road. The legal description of the land subject to the NOR is detailed within the NOR.

[012] For the TDC the location to which the relevant NOR applies is generally described as an area of the Manawatū River at the eastern end of the Manawatū Gorge, immediately upstream of Moutere/Parahaki Island (which is at the river’s confluence with the Pohangina River),and an area of land extending from the district boundary with the Manawatū District across the Ruahine Range (in part of which the Te Āpiti wind farm is situated), traversing the slopes at the eastern part of the range, and crossing farmland to SH3 at Woodlands and Troup Roads near Woodville. The legal description of the land subject to the NOR is detailed within the NOR. 1.4 Project Description [013] In this section of this Report we describe the NOR as it was when notified. Amendments to it arising from the submission and hearing process are described in section 5.2 of this Report.

[014] The Project application and supporting Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE) comprises four volumes of documents, including regulatory forms, supporting material addressing matters under s171 RMA and assessments of environmental effects, technical assessments in support of the Project, and a set of drawings and plans.

[015] The Project is fully detailed in the application documents (Volume 1) and AEE (Volume 2) prepared by NZTA and dated 31 October 2018. The main elements of the Project, based on the indicative alignment, are set out in the AEE at Part A: Introduction and Background to Project, and in Volume 4: Drawings and Plans.

[016] To aid the reader we record that the Project’s western extent is at a new four-leg roundabout for the SH3/SH57 intersection east of the existing tee intersection. The western leg of the roundabout ties into SH3 prior to the existing SH3 Manawatū River Bridge at Ashhurst. The southern leg of the roundabout ties in to the existing SH57. The northern leg ties into the currently closed SH3 providing direct linkage to the western Gorge carpark and access to properties either side of SH3. The eastern leg of the roundabout is the approach to the new road.

[017] The Project’s eastern extent is a new five-leg roundabout connecting Woodland Road, SH3 to Woodville, Troup Road, Napier Road (old section of SH3) and the new road. The roundabout replaces, and is to the west of, the existing Woodland Road/Troup Road/SH3 intersection at a location that optimises the approach geometry from all five legs, and in particular the linkage to Napier Road.

[018] The Project corridor from the western roundabout heads east then north on a gradual incline as it approaches a new proposed crossing of the Manawatū River at the mouth of Manawatū Gorge. It crosses the Manawatū River over a new large span bridge, with its southern abutment being on the terrace south of the western Gorge carpark, spanning to the north over the Gorge carpark, river and rail line to the north of the river. The bridge’s northern abutment is on a natural spur immediately north of the rail line.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[019] The Project progresses in a north-westerly direction over a bridge spanning an area containing a wetland, swamp maire, and other significant vegetation. It then progresses up the range initially in a northwest direction before turning to the right to head north at the point it crosses a two-branched QEII covenant area.

[020] Indicatively, the Project crosses the western branch of the QEII covenant area on a single-span bridge leaving the gully floor undisturbed, then through a relatively small cut prior to crossing the second branch of the covenant area with an embankment and culvert.

[021] It then traverses the Ruahine Range through the Te Āpiti wind farm, following a low point in the terrain and substantially avoiding the wind farm’s above-ground infrastructure, until it reaches the ridgeline immediately prior to the descent to Woodville.

[022] From the ridgeline, the Project follows highpoints and spurs in the terrain where possible in order to minimise the need to construct embankments through gullies, the majority of which have medium to high ecological value. The descent traverses in a south-easterly direction before turning to the east across the plain towards Woodville where it connects to the new roundabout. This part of the Project alignment bisects the Ballantrae longstanding field trial owned by AgResearch Limited (AgResearch).

[023] There are currently 7 main structures proposed along the Project alignment as follows: a) Three overpass structures (highway over the structure) where large box structures are proposed to provide connectivity to land either side of the highway or to maintain private access, including for Meridian Energy Limited (Meridian); b) One large-span structure across the Manawatū River; and c) Three standard highway bridges (Super T or Hollowcore) across high-value ecological areas or watercourses. [024] Between the roundabouts, the Project will be designed to an operating speed of 100 km/h. It compromises two lanes (plus additional crawler lanes, which are required due to steep grades and to maintain a consistent corridor) with a median barrier and wide outside shoulders.

[025] The Project specifically excludes the revocation and/or termination of the existing SH3 route through the Gorge and any future potential uses of that existing designation. We understand that these processes will be dealt with separately under the Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) and/or the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA). A number of public submissions have been received on the existing closed route and its future use.

[026] NZTA seeks a lapse period of 10 years to give effect to the Project Designation under s184(1)(c) RMA.

[027] The Project includes land that is subject to earlier designations in favour of other requiring authorities, namely KiwiRail Holdings Ltd (for railway purposes) and TDC (Woodville Landfill). Written consent under s177(1)(a) RMA will be required from these requiring authorities before construction activities can commence.

[028] The Project includes land which is subject to protective open space covenants under the QEII National Trust Act 1977. The removal of these covenants will take place under the PWA. 1.5 Project Construction [029] In this section of this Report we describe the construction of the new road as it was described in the NOR as notified. Amendments to its construction arising from the submission and hearing process are described in section 5.2 of this Report.

[030] The Project construction works include the bridge over the Manawatū River, working across a ‘live’ rail corridor and enabling works to protect or divert essential services.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[031] Intrusive preconstruction site investigations will be required, as will site establishment activities which are comprehensively described within the application and include matters such as: a) location and protection or diversion of services, including in particular the First Gas high-pressure gas pipeline and the Mangamaire - Woodville A 110kv transmission line; b) formulation of construction accesses, including widening in localised areas of Saddle Road; c) establishment of site compounds and lay down areas; d) erosion and sediment control measures; e) collection and treatment of stormwater; f) reservoirs for construction water storage; and g) installation of traffic management controls.

[032] Construction accesses from SH3 or SH57 are proposed at the western end of the route in order to construct the new intersection and southern Manawatū River bridge abutment. The eastern end of the route will be accessed from Hope Road, which is likely to require upgrading. Access to the ridge area will be gained from Saddle Road in a number of locations, using existing roads and tracks where possible. Indicative site access locations are shown on the Designation plans (D0 to D10) provided in Volume 4. A temporary railway crossing over the existing rail corridor will be needed to construct the northern abutment of the new Manawatū River bridge.

[033] Access to private properties will be maintained and may require temporary access routes and improvement works. Public access to the Department of Conservation (DOC) Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve will be maintained during construction by a temporary access route and car park.

[034] Ecological surveys, monitoring and relocation work will be required in accordance with Designation conditions and management plans for lizards, bats, birds, and invertebrates.

[035] Localised earthworks will be required to enable the formation of site accesses/haul roads. These activities will require removal of topsoil, importing of materials, formulation of swales, temporary culverts and stream crossings.

[036] Existing areas of vegetation cover will be removed to allow for the Project construction. This may require the use of large clearance machinery such as 20-50T diggers, skidders and chippers, given the size of some of the existing vegetation, which includes plantation forest.

[037] A network of localised decanting earth bunds is likely to be used to manage sediment, along with swales and silt fences in fill areas and cut-off channels in cut areas, weed matting and planting of embankments, and sediment retention ponds.

[038] Earthworks activities will include the stripping of topsoil (approximately 180,000m3), installation of drainage, and establishment of spoil disposal sites and landscaping, ‘mucking out’ and filling of gullies and cut and fill activities including embankment construction. Waste or landscaping sites will be established approximately 500m apart to reduce haulage distances and off-site disposal. Imported hard fill will be required for site compounds and haul roads.

[039] The Project construction water may be sourced from existing farm ponds, purpose-built reservoirs or shipped in by road.

[040] The Project construction traffic will primarily access the site from Saddle Road. Vehicles are predicted to access the site from both ends of the route, with a peak of up to 224 construction vehicles per day travelling from either end of the route to access the site. Between 40 to 50% of those vehicles are expected to be heavy vehicles.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[041] Some night time construction is anticipated, partly to meet the construction programme, and partly where required to construct some specific elements of the Project, such as tie-in surfacing connections to existing roads.

[042] The Project route is close to the closed Woodville Borough Council landfill and this area will need to be tested and works managed to ensure any contaminated soil and waste material is appropriately handled and disposed of. This part of the Project route, as mentioned earlier, also traverses the Ballantrae Research Station.

[043] The Project construction programme is expected to be between 5 -7 years in duration (including enabling works). 1.6 Detailed Design, Management Plans and Outline Plans [044] The NOR involves a corridor that will contain the new road. As part of the NOR application NZTA included an indicative road alignment.3 However, the final alignment and its detailed design and construction methodology will be confirmed once a ‘construction alliance’ is engaged by NZTA.

[045] Consequently, in addition to a range of conditions setting out broad scale environmental constraints (or ‘effects envelopes’) on the Project, NZTA has proposed a suite of management plans that will manage detailed effects of the new road’s construction and operation. Each management plan has a separate condition relating to it. Additionally, NZTA propose to prepare and submit Outline Plan(s) of Works (outline plan(s)) for both enabling works and construction works.

[046] Management plans are commonly used for major construction projects. We understand management plans to be a suitable mechanism for ensuring that conditions are complied with and detailed environmental effects are managed appropriately. Management plans avoid cluttering the conditions with excessive detail, particularly with regard to how certain construction works or mitigation actions will occur. The caveat is that each management plan condition must specify the purpose or objective of the plan; ideally which conditions it is designed to assist with implementing; the minimum contents of the plan; who is to prepare it; and who else should be consulted or involved in that process.

[047] Commonly conditions will specify that a management plan is to be submitted to the appropriate council and thereafter ‘certified’, which for all intents and purposes is an approval process. Ideally, the condition should set out a process for reviewing or amending the plan as a project proceeds. If there is conflict between the management plan and the conditions, then the conditions must prevail.

[048] We have reviewed the management plan conditions recommended to us by both NZTA and the s42A authors. Not all of them consistently addressed the above matters, so we have amended them to ensure that each management plan condition has a clear objective and a minimum list of contents. We have also specified that each plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and that for some of the plans (particularly those that do not relate to NZTA ‘core business’ transportation management matters) that person should be independent of NZTA. We have also specified which other groups or agencies should be involved in, or be consulted about, the content of the plans.

[049] A key matter of dispute between NZTA and the s42A authors was whether or not the management plans should be ‘certified’ by the Councils. The s42A authors initially recommended that some4 (but not all) management plans should be certified. They later suggested that management plans should be subject to a ‘written confirmation’ process which seemed to us to differ little in practice from a ‘written certification’ process.

3 Volume 4: Drawings and Plans, Map Set A-00. 4 Section 42A condition set of 5 April 2019: Lizard Management Plan, Bat Management Plan, and the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan and any management plans required for enabling works.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[050] NZTA opposed a ‘certification’ or ‘confirmation’ process because all of the management plans will be included in, and form part of, one or more outline plans and s176A(4) of the RMA already enables the Councils to request changes to a submitted outline plan, and if NZTA decides not to make those changes s176A(5) enables the Councils to appeal that decision to the Environment Court. NZTA saw ‘written certification / confirmation’ as an inefficient duplication of process. We have some sympathy with that view.

[051] However, it was clear to us that (apart from the provision of a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians) one of the more highly contested aspects of the NOR related to effects on indigenous biodiversity and, to a lesser extent, the natural character of streams. We therefore find that the Ecological Management Plan (Condition 24) should be subject to a Council certification process. We are aware that the Ecological Management Plan’s component management plans for lizards, bats birds and invertebrates will also therefore be subject to that same scrutiny. We make this finding because although we are satisfied with NZTA’s ‘effects envelope’ approach (primarily contained in Conditions 9(e) and 18) for limiting adverse effects on biodiversity (we discuss that in detail in section 5.2.7 of this Report), we see the Ecological Management Plan and its species specific component management plans as the detailed means of giving effect to NZTA’s approach. That involves important technical detail which can and should be subject to a technical ‘peer review’ type process that we understand would underpin Council ‘certification’ of the Ecological Management Plan.

[052] Accordingly, we have recommended Condition 3 setting out a process by which the Ecological Management Plan will be certified. We have imposed strict time limits on that process and in the event that certification is refused, the Ecological Management Plan nevertheless forms part of the Construction and Environmental Management Plan (Condition 14) which in turn forms part of the construction works outline plan, thereby enabling the Councils to eventually appeal its content under s176A of the RMA if they are sufficiently motivated to do so. Our hope is that the certification process will avoid that occurring.

[053] We have also recommended Condition 4 which sets out a process for ‘re-certifying’ an amended Ecological Management Plan at any time during the anticipated 5-year construction period. We have done that in recognition that the outline plan appeal process might not be suitable for settling any unresolved areas of dispute at that later stage. Instead, we have provided for NZTA to engage an independent, suitably qualified and experienced expert to adjudicate on any area(s) of disagreement.

[054] The Project involves both enabling works (a defined term) and construction works. The former works are “preliminary works” that are a precursor to the construction of the road itself. An issue of contention was whether or not some or all of the management plans should be prepared prior to the commencement of enabling works. NZTA’s view was that was simply not possible because enabling works have already commenced. We agree with NZTA on that point.

[055] However, we are mindful that the enabling works can have effects that the various management plans could usefully address and that some enabling works might occur for some time to come. Consequently, the approach we have taken is to require the management plans to either be prepared prior to construction works commencing, or in some cases to be included in the Ecological Management Plan or the Construction Environmental Management Plan which has the same effect.5

[056] However, contrary to the wishes of NZTA, we have required the management plans to address the effects of enabling works in recognition that those effects may still be occurring when construction commences or in some cases enabling works somewhere in the Designation might possibly occur after construction commences elsewhere in the Designation.

5 The Construction Environmental Management Plan must be prepared prior to construction works commencing and the Ecological Management Plan forms part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[057] Furthermore, we have also recommended that where management plans might foreseeably address enabling works, those plans are to be prepared “as soon as practicable, and prior to the commencement of construction work activities”.

[058] As recommended to us, some of the conditions specified that a management plan must be included in the outline plan for construction works (Condition 9). To simplify the conditions, we have omitted those clauses because all of the relevant management plans6 form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan and that plan must form part of the outline plan for construction works.

[059] Consequently, it goes without saying that the Construction Environmental Management Plan is a very important document.

[060] Turning now to the outline plans, as we noted above, NZTA intends to submit one or more outline plan(s) in accordance with s176A(3) of the RMA. NZTA is not seeking to waive that requirement.

[061] Condition 8 provides for an outline plan for enabling works and Condition 9 does the same for construction works. There was some contention between the parties regarding the content of the outline plans. Our starting point was to reflect on the content of s176A(3) of the RMA:

(3) An outline plan must show— (a) the height, shape, and bulk of the public work, project, or work; and (b) the location on the site of the public work, project, or work; and (c) the likely finished contour of the site; and (d) the vehicular access, circulation, and the provision for parking; and (e) the landscaping proposed; and (f) any other matters to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment

[062] We saw no need to duplicate in conditions the matters already covered by s176A(3) and we have amended the outline plan conditions so that they generally refer to matters not already compulsorily required by s176A(3). To make this clear we have prefaced Condition 8(b) and Condition 9(e) with the words “In addition to the matters required by section 176A(3) of the RMA, the outline plan(s) must …”

[063] Regarding enabling works, we are cognisant of the point made by NZTA that some enabling works will be permitted activities under the district plans. We have therefore limited Condition 8 to works that are not permitted activities.

[064] We have also clarified that various management plans do not need to be prepared prior to enabling works commencing (as discussed above) by explicitly stating (in Condition 8(c)(ii)) the outline plan for enabling works does not need to include those plans.

[065] Condition 9(c) lists fifteen management plans that must be included in the outline plan for construction works. It is conceivable, in fact almost inevitable, that some of those plans will need to be amended as the Project progresses. We have therefore recommended Condition 9(d) which allows that to occur provided “The amendment is in general accordance with the outcome described in the original document or the purpose of the original plan …”. There are two exceptions: (a) The ‘certified’ Ecological Management Plan must be amended via the ‘re-certification’ process (Condition 4) discussed above; and (b) the management plans can be amended to reflect amendments to the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework, recognising that the Framework is a work in progress at the time of writing.

[066] In light of all of the above, we are satisfied that the combination of explicit ‘effects envelope’ conditions, management plans and outline plans (together with the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework)

6 Apart from management plans specific to network utilities and the Ballantrae Research Station.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

collectively provide a sufficiently clear and certain means of managing the effects of the NOR. In saying that we acknowledge that further detailed aspects of the Project will necessarily be re-examined under the regional consents process yet to come. Sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.7 of this Report in particular contain a further discussion of that matter. 1.7 Other Resource Consents, Authorisations or Approvals [067] Other authorisations or approvals7 may be required to undertake the Project works described in the NOR. Future consents, authorisations or approvals relating to the Project that are anticipated but are not being sought at this time are set out at section 1.5 of the AEE.

[068] In opening Mr Randal disclosed that a range of regional resource consents from the Manawatū Whanganui Regional Council, including for discharges to land and water and removal of indigenous biodiversity, would be required before the Project could proceed. Consents will be required for large- scale land disturbance, discharges to land and water, removal of indigenous biodiversity, water takes, works within the beds of rivers, streams and artificial watercourses, activities in ‘rare and threatened habitats’ under the Manawatū Whanganui Regional Council’s One Plan – Part 2.

[069] NZTA has chosen to lodge the required resource consent applications at a later date and these will be sought as part of the detailed design phase of the Project. Counsel for the territorial authorities in their regulatory capacity (Nicholas Jessen) and the s42A authors were concerned about the relationship between the NOR and these subsequent resource consents. They considered that there was inadequate information regarding the effects of the NOR in the absence of those consents having been sought. However, we were satisfied that we had sufficient evidence before us on the relevant effects and we discuss this further in section 5.2 of this Report.

[070] We are directed by s171(1) of the RMA to consider effects on the environment of allowing the NOR. We agree with Mr Randal that in considering the NoR we do not need to evaluate in any detail the effects of other activities not enabled by the NoR, that is activities for which resource consent must be sought from the Regional Council. We agree with him that adverse effects of those future activities and the measures to address them cannot be said to be “effects of allowing the requirement”, because the requirement will not allow NZTA to carry out those activities.

[071] We also agree with Mr Randal that we should be wary of the encouragement evident within the s42A reports to reach a high degree of certainty that there is a pathway through the regional planning instruments for this Project. As we see it, that is a function of a future decision-maker. Also, we do not consider that speculating whether later consent applications for those activities are likely to be granted is a matter that helps us make a recommendation on the NoR before us.

[072] Initially some participants8 relied on an interpretation of s91 of the RMA to support their submissions that we or the consent authorities should have directed NZTA to apply for any necessary resource consents at the same time that it gave notice of its requirement. Ultimately those participants did not advance those initial submissions. In our view s91 is applicable to resource consents and there is no equivalent provision in respect of notices of requirement.

[073] NZTA, through the evidence of Mr Lonnie Dalzell, explained the consenting pathway adopted for the Project. Driven by the urgent need to establish a replacement road transport link for the closed Gorge Road, efficiencies within the consenting process are required. Mr Dalzell explained these efficiencies can be achieved by having the same organisations, in this case an alliance, undertake the detailed design of

7 Other authorisations that are likely to be required include consents under the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011; consents under the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities) Regulations 2009; requiring authority consents under s177 of the RMA for works that may prevent or hinder an existing designated project or public work, including from KiwiRail (for crossing the rail corridor designation on the northern bank of the Manawatū River) and Tararua District Council (for works within the designation for the closed Woodville Landfill); and authorisations from the Director-General of Conservation under s53 of the Wildlife Act 1953 in relation to any protected wildlife. An archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 is to be sought by NZTA. 8 Department of Conservation legal submissions.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

the Project and at the same time obtain any necessary resource consents, lodge the outline plans and then construct the Project.

[074] Mr Dalzell explained for other projects NZTA often entered into construction contracts once it had completed the RMA consenting phase. Experience had shown that the procurement of construction contractors bought about a rethink in terms of design which led to design changes and the need for designations to be altered and different or additional resource consents to be obtained. All of these steps added considerable time to the overall program. He referenced the Peka Peka to North Otaki Expressway project as an example of that approach. That project was originally consented in 2014, but Mr Dalzell told us that the constructors were still seeking resource consents relating to altered aspects of its design.

[075] In contrast, for this Project the contractor responsible for its eventual construction will themselves be undertaking the detailed design, ensuring that the design and consenting processes will need to be completed only once. That was the rationale for the consenting approach adopted here.

[076] Mr Dalzell pointed out other benefits of this ‘hybrid alliance’ model. In his opinion it will place more emphasis than there would otherwise be on social outcomes, valuing innovation in design, and further engagement with communities and stakeholders. His evidence on this point was understandably not contradicted by others. Accordingly, we accept his opinions on these points.

2.0 Prehearing Process

2.1 Affected Parties/Stakeholders [077] The affected parties (including stakeholders) identified by NZTA are set out in Part F: Consultation and Engagement, Chapter 24 of the AEE. It describes the pre-application consultation that has been undertaken with these parties and the public and how the feedback provided has informed the development of the Project.

[078] Stakeholders were engaged through a series of workshops and individual meetings. A Joint Working Group was established in December 2017 to consider the interrelationship between development of the Project route and a regional freight network. Combined and individual stakeholder meetings have continued since the preferred Project route announcement, including a stakeholder workshop prior to lodgement of the NOR.

[079] The details of how NZTA has engaged with directly and indirectly affected landowners is also set out in Part F of the AEE. Eleven land owners are identified by NZTA as being directly affected by the Project, including seven private landowners, Meridian, AgResearch, TDC and the Crown. The affected properties include five hill country pastoral farms, three rural lifestyle farmlets, one pastoral research farm, a previous Council’s closed land fill site, and the KiwiRail Palmerston North – Gisborne line. Two of the hill country pastoral farms accommodate Meridian’s Te Ᾱpiti wind farm.

[080] NZTA has identified three other landowners in close proximity to the Project, namely two residential properties and one Māori owned land parcel adjoining the Manawatū River (Parahaki Island).

[081] The potential effects on landowners and proposed mitigation are considered further in section 5.2.9 of this Report. 2.2 Section 92 Further Information Request [082] A formal request for further information to assist the Councils in their consideration of the NOR was made under s92(1) of the RMA on 4 December 2018. The request related to gaps in, or clarification of, the draft conditions, transport and traffic effects, construction noise and vibration, earthworks, use of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework as a means of mitigating landscape, visual and natural character

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

effects, effects on QEII covenanted areas and impacts on tangata whenua values. NZTA responded to this request on 15 January 2019.9 2.3 Public Notification [083] NZTA requested that the NOR be publicly notified (see Volume 2, Part A) under s149ZCB(2)(b) of the RMA. Full details of public notification and related processes are set out10 in the of Section 42A Technical Evidence: Planning By: Phillip Percy and Anita Copplestone, Consultant Planners. 2.4 Submissions [084] A total of 742 submissions were received on the Project. There were no late submissions. Eighty five submitters asked to be heard. A summary of the key themes raised in the submissions is set out in section 6.2 of the Section 42A Technical Evidence: Planning.

[085] In respect of traffic and transportation effects, approximately 660 submitters identify their support for a safe, separated walking and cycling facility in association with the Project and linking Ashhurst to Woodville, for reasons of road safety and accessibility as well as recreation, economic and environmental benefits.

[086] Around sixty submitters request that such a path also accommodate horses. Approximately forty submitters identify the economic and tourism benefits of providing such a pathway in terms of attracting cycle tourism, including as a result of providing an ‘iconic trail’ not available anywhere else in the region, and an opportunity to link in to existing tracks/trails to provide a cluster of attractions around the Manawatū Gorge.

[087] The second most commonly raised concern is in relation to the ecological effects of the Project. Submitters are concerned about the potentially significant adverse effects on a wide range of values as a result of the removal of old growth forest, stands of swamp maire and rare wetland habitat, including indigenous vegetation, avifauna, freshwater and riverine values, herptofauna (lizards), invertebrates and indigenous species, including bats.

[088] Submitters raised concerns about the proposals (including the calculations and proposed locations) for off-setting (and whether this is in fact compensation, not offsetting), remediation, replacement planting, the extent of pest control and maintenance (including in relation to the closed Gorge Road) and the contents of associated environmental management plans. Several submitters considered that there is insufficient detail to enable specific comments on biodiversity measures. Others are concerned at the lack of prescription or certainty to NZTA’s proposed conditions and whether these would achieve a net ecological gain.

[089] Impacts on freshwater values (including native species, riparian margins, riverine/instream habitat) as a result of run-off from roads and the construction activities, resulting in subsequent contamination and impacts on downstream tributaries, including the Manawatū River, is another issue raised by submitters.

[090] Submitters identify that recreational access to the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve, (including the western carpark) and across the ranges is a top priority and aspiration for future development of the area, as identified in local plans and strategies and supported by multi-agency collaborations such as the Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Project. A number of opportunities are identified, including to re-designate the closed Gorge Road as a walkway/cycleway and to link into the proposed Gottfried Lindauer Arts Trail at the Woodville end.

[091] Several submitters raise concerns about light pollution (including as a result of oncoming vehicle headlights), construction dust and vehicle emissions, and noise resulting in adverse amenity impacts on residential properties. Hope Road and Vogel Street in Woodville, and the proposed new roundabout on

9 Appendix 1 and 2 of Section 42A Technical Evidence: Planning By: Phillip Percy and Anita Copplestone, Consultant Planners 10 Ibid paragraph 83.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Fitzherbert East Road with SH3 are identified by submitters as areas where nearby residents will be adversely affected and submitters request specific mitigation to address this. Adverse impacts on property values are raised by owners of property in close proximity to the new roundabouts, and where the Project will result in the direct loss of private property.

[092] The Director-General of Conservation has raised concerns about the adverse social, noise, landscape, natural character and visual amenity impacts on users of the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve in the vicinity of the western carpark.

[093] A number of submitters are concerned about the impacts on the operation of the Ballantrae Hill Country Research Station and specifically the long-term phosphorus fertiliser and sheep grazing trial site, which is bisected by the route. Submitters raised concerns about the incalculable intrinsic value of this research site on a national scale, its uniqueness and its irreplaceability. Submitters are concerned that loss of this site will have significant adverse economic impacts nationally, as the trial provides data for many different purposes (including some which are yet unknown) including in relation to climate change. Submitters request consideration of an alternative route in this location, to avoid bisecting the trial site farmlets.

[094] Impacts on other network utilities within the Designation route are raised by the operators of these networks, including the Meridian Te Āpiti wind farm, Transpower Mangamaire-Woodville A transmission line and Powerco Ltd 11kv transmission line. These concerns relate to the need to ensure that construction and operation of the Project does not adversely affect the ongoing development, operation, maintenance and upgrading of these assets. 2.5 Pre-Hearing Minutes [095] We issued a number of Minutes that directed the holding of prehearing meetings, detailed evidence exchange, expert caucusing and finally detailed a range of our questions for participants. We also requested any legal submissions be circulated in advance of the relevant scheduled appearance at the hearing.

[096] Participants followed these directions resulting in a hearing occupying approximately two weeks rather than the scheduled three. In our view compliance with the prehearing directions, in particular responding to precirculated Panel questions, ensured hearing participants focused on relevant issues. As a consequence, we received prehearing meeting reports and joint witness statements which we have taken into account.

[097] Our sixth Minute detailed our site visit itinerary which we undertook prior to commencement of the hearing. Before settling our itinerary we asked all participants to direct us to areas of interest or concern to them.

[098] Other Minutes we issued prescribed the process and procedures to be applied at the hearing. These included facilitating a recording of the hearing itself.

3.0 Hearing and Post-Hearing Steps

3.1 The Hearing [099] The hearing commenced on Monday 25 March 2019 at the Distinction Hotel in Palmerston North in accordance with the hearing notice dated 20 February 2019. The hearing concluded on Friday 5 April 2019 at which time we adjourned for the right of reply which was provided in writing on 17 April 2019 and person at the reconvened hearing on 18 April 2019. Thereafter we adjourned the hearing.

[100] Throughout the hearing we received multiple sets of recommended conditions from submitters, NZTA and the s42A authors. We considered these in coming to our own set of recommended conditions. Given the complexity of the conditions we circulated a ‘draft’ set of preliminary conditions and invited comments on these from the parties prior to finalising the set now attached to and forming part of this Report.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[101] We issued a Minute on 22 May 2019 closing the hearing.

[102] A record of relevant information associated with the hearing and this Report can be found on the PNCC website under the URL address:

https://www.pncc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/te-ahu-a-t%C5%ABranga-manawat%C5%AB- tararua-highway/

[103] This webpage was regularly updated as the hearing process proceeded and includes the following: . The public notice of the notices of requirement; . The notices of requirement; . The Minutes and Directions from the hearing panel . The s42A technical evidence; . Hearing panel questions and responses; . Prehearing meetings reports; . NZTA evidence and legal submissions; . Submitter evidence, including evidence from: o AgResearch; o Meridian; o Department of Conservation; o PNCC; o Manawatū Wanganui Regional Council; . Joint Witness Statements; . Hearing documents including hearing schedules; . Items tabled at the hearing including; o NZTA indicative route fly over; o Addenda from many expert witnesses; o Presentations by submitters; and . Hearing recordings.

[104] We have considered all of this information in our deliberations and decision-making processes.

[105] We have requested that PNCC maintain this website as a hearing record through and beyond the issuing of this Report and NZTA’s decision on our recommendations. We have also asked that a record of all information associated with this hearing is appropriately archived for future reference. 3.2 Post-Hearing [106] During deliberations and following the hearing we issued Minute 9 informing participants of our intention to circulate a set of preliminary conditions. We explained we were doing so because of the complexity of the proposed conditions, our desire to achieve certainty and to avoid delay following the release of our recommendations.

[107] We restricted any comment on conditions to administrative type issues as distinct from matters of merit. We received comments from NZTA, the s42A authors, Meridian, the DOC, PNCC, the QEII Trust and AgResearch. We found the comments to be helpful and generally constructive. We record we have taken them into account in reaching our recommendations on the conditions that should attach to the Designations.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway 4.0 Statutory Framework (section 171(1))

[108] In this part of our Report we address the statutory framework applicable to our assessment of the NOR.

[109] Firstly, we deal with Part 2 because s171(1) of the RMA is subject to Part 2. We understand from submissions made to us, case law and legal commentary that the directions in Part 2, which includes sections 6, 7 and 8, are paramount and are overriding in the event of conflict. We understand the relevant Part 2 directions therefore apply to our evaluation of specific effects on the environment and our evaluation in the final analysis. That is how we have applied Part 2.

[110] Section 171(1) requires us to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the NOR having particular regard to the matters set out in subsections (a)-(d). We understand this to mean that the matters in (a)-(d) need to be borne in mind when considering our findings on effects on the environment.

[111] In turning our minds to the appropriate application of ss171(1)(a)-(d), it is our understanding of the legal submissions and case law referred to that we should consider those effects having particular regard to the matters expressed in subparagraphs (a)-(d) at the same time without giving one primacy or making one subordinate to the other.

[112] We also understand that the language “having particular regard to” expresses a duty for us to turn our minds separately to each of the matters listed, to consider and carefully weigh each one. The words do not carry a meaning that the matters listed in subparagraphs (a)-(d) are necessarily more or less important than the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement.

[113] We also understand we must make our own judgement based on the evidence and in the circumstances of the case about the effects on the environment, about the matters listed in (a)-(d), and the relative importance of each in all the circumstances of the case. Having done so we must then finally determine whether or not the NOR is in accordance with Part 2.

[114] So we have structured our recommendations in the following way: (a) to identify the relevant provisions of the main RMA statutory instruments that we must have particular regard to under s171(1)(a), and the relevant provisions of the main non-RMA statutory instruments and non-statutory documents that we must have particular regard to under s171(1)(d); (b) to consider and evaluate the adverse and beneficial effects on the environment informed by the relevant provisions of Part 2; the relevant statutory instruments; and other relevant matters being the NOR conditions and non-statutory documents; (c) to consider and evaluate the directions given in s171(1)(b) as to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work; (d) to consider and evaluate the directions given in s171(1)(c) as to whether the work and Designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives for which the Designation is sought; and (e) In making our overall judgement subject to Part 2, to consider and evaluate our findings in (a) to (d) above and to determine whether the requirement achieves the RMA’s purpose of sustainability. 4.1 Relevant RMA Instruments [115] In this part of our Report we address the relevant provisions of the statutory instruments listed in s171(1)(a) of the RMA which in this case are:11 . National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM); . National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 (NPSREG); . National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission 2010 (NPSET); . Regional Policy Statement (RPS or One Plan – Part 1);

11 In terms of s171(1)(a)(ii) we note that the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is not relevant as we understand that the NOR does not fall within the coastal environment.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

. Regional Plan (RP or One Plan – Part 2); . Palmerston North City District Plan 2000 (PNCDP);12 . Manawatū District Plan 2002 (MDP);13 and . Tararua District Plan 2012 (TDP).

[116] The NOR primarily covers land that is zoned Rural in the three district plans, other than adjacent to the Manawatū and Pohangina Rivers where there are flood protection zones14. The NOR also traverses two existing designations.15

[117] We consider that in having particular regard to the provisions of these statutory instruments we should focus on the policy outcomes sought in relation to the potential effects of the NOR. That will usefully guide our assessment of those effects and the adequacy of any mitigation offered by NZTA. The instruments collectively contain a plethora of potentially relevant objectives and policies. Accordingly, we have sought to identify policy outcomes (or themes) under the same suite of headings that we use in the parts of this Report that describe the established existing environment (section 5.1) and the effects on that environment (section 5.2).

[118] We have not generally dwelt on provisions that require effects to be ‘controlled’, ‘managed or ‘sustainably managed’. Similarly, we have not dwelt on provisions that merely repeat elements of s6 or s7 of the RMA because we explicitly address RMA Part 2 matters in this Report (section 6.4). Where the various statutory documents contain inconsistent provisions on the same topic, we afford priority firstly to a national policy statement, followed by the RPS and lastly the district plans. Where district plans contain differing policy guidance, we generally refer to the more stringent provisions.

[119] We note that district plan rules are not relevant because the district aspects of the NOR are proposed to be authorised by the eventual Designations.16 We also note that NZTA intends to seek necessary regional resource consents at a later stage and so we do not assess regional rules set out in Part 2 of the One Plan or any objectives and policies solely directed at regional resource consent decision-making.

[120] NZTA listed what it considered to be the relevant provisions of the statutory documents in the AEE.17 A similar exercise was undertaken by the s42A authors, although in some cases the provisions cited were not overly relevant in our view.18 Having reviewed the statutory documents ourselves we find that the AEE and the s42A Report collectively result in us being very well informed about the relevant policy and plan provisions. We note that the AEE included commentary on whether or not the NOR was consistent with the statutory documents, however we address that in the assessment of effects part of this Report (section 5.2). 4.1.1 Traffic and transport [121] Road networks mapped in the Regional Land Transport Strategy are to be recognised as physical resources of regional or national importance.19 We are to provide for that network by enabling its establishment and operation.20 The s42A report authors noted that whilst not yet mapped in the Strategy, the Project is recognised as a key priority. The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) identifies a

12 Including provisions inserted by PPC22A-G, although we give those provisions less weight as they are yet to be subject to a Schedule 1 hearing. 13 We have not addressed provisions of Plan Change 55 that are subject to appeal. 14 PNCDP Flood Protection Zone and MDP Flood Channel 2 Zone 15 KiwiRail designation D6B for the Palmerston North – Gisborne railway (MDP) and the Tararua District Council’s designation D112 for the closed Woodville landfill (TDP). 16 Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Northern Corridor Improvements Proposal, Volume 1 of 2: Final Report and Appendices, November 2017 at [182]. 17 Ibid, sections 41 to 44 and Volume 2.1 Statutory Provisions. 18 S42A Technical Evidence: Planning, By: Phillip Percy and Anita Copplestone, Consultant Planners, undated, sections 6.5 to 6.8 and section 8.2 to 8.15. 19 RPS Objective 3-1. As are rail networks, electricity generation facilities (the Te Apiti windfarm in this case), gas pipelines and the National Grid. 20 PNCDP, MDP.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

replacement route for the closed Gorge Road as a key focus and a first priority for funding.21 Accordingly, its establishment and operation are to be enabled.

[122] We are to have regard to the benefits of infrastructure of regional or national importance (such as this Project) by recognising and providing for its establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading. Minor adverse effects arising from the establishment of regionally or nationally important physical resources (such as this Project) are to be allowed and more than minor effects are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated; while taking into account the need for the physical resource, any constraints on its location, whether there are reasonably practicable alternative locations, and the use of offsets if effects cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.22

[123] Public transport, walking and cycling is to be provided for and the development of safe and accessible pedestrian paths and cycleways is to be encouraged.23 New roads are to be designed to recognise walking and cycling24 and are to be integrated into the existing network.25 They should be designed and constructed to move people and goods safely and efficiently and meet performance standards relating to road width, alignment and gradient; surface sealing; road access points and intersections. Through traffic is to be discouraged from residential areas.26 Appropriate sight lines are to be provided at intersections and property entrances. 4.1.2 Noise and vibration [124] Appropriate noise standards are to be imposed to protect noise sensitive activities and dwellings. Mitigation is to be provided where noise exceeds noise limits.27 Through movement of high volume and heavy traffic should occur on arterial routes if the movement would have adverse noise effects on adjoining residential areas.28 4.1.3 Social [125] Adverse effects on amenity and character are to be avoided29 or mitigated.30 New development should not adversely affect the existing vitality, character and amenity of rural areas.31 Public access to and along rivers is to be maintained or enhanced.32 We are to consider the economic benefits of the Project and contribution it will make to the functioning and wellbeing of the community and beyond when assessing its location, design and appearance.33 4.1.4 Landscape and visual amenity [126] The RPS34 identifies the series of highest ridges and highest hilltops along the full extent of the Ruahine and Tararua Ranges (including within the Forest Parks) and the Manawatū Gorge (from Ballance Bridge to the confluence of the Pohangina and Manawatū Rivers including the adjacent scenic reserve) as outstanding natural features and landscapes. The characteristics and values of these outstanding areas35 are to be protected from inappropriate use and development and significant cumulative adverse effects on them are to be avoided. The Pohangina River valley is also identified as outstanding and is to be protected.36 In areas that are not outstanding, adverse effects are avoided as far as is reasonably practicable, or otherwise remedied or mitigated.37

21 NOR Volume Two, section 1.2. 22 RPS Policy 3-2. 23 PNCDP, TDP. 24 MDP. 25 MDP. 26 PNCDP, MDP. 27 PNCDP, MDP. 28 PNDP, MDP. 29 PNCDP. 30 MDP. 31 MDP, TDP. 32 RPS. 33 PNCP, MDP. 34 One Plan, Schedule G Table G.1 35 As listed in One Plan Schedule G Table G.1 36 MDP. 37 RPS, TDP.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[127] Network utilities should be constructed and located in a manner sensitive to the amenity and landscape values where they are located. Effects on visual amenity values are to be mitigated by landscaping.38 4.1.5 Natural character [128] The life supporting capacity, ecosystem processes, indigenous species and their habitats in wetlands and rivers are to be safe-guarded. The significant values of wetlands are to be protected.39

[129] Adverse effects are to be avoided in areas of outstanding natural character. Adverse effects that would significantly diminish the attributes and qualities of rivers and wetlands with high natural character are to be avoided and adverse effects on other areas with lesser natural character are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Natural character is to be restored and rehabilitated where appropriate and practicable. The instream morphological components of natural character are to be provided for.40 The conservation values of riparian margins which have a high value due to areas of indigenous vegetation adjoining the water’s edge are to be protected.41

[130] Use and development is to be considered appropriate if it has a functional necessity to be located in or near a wetland or river, provided it is compatible with the existing level of modification to the environment; it is of an appropriate form, scale and design to be compatible with existing landforms, geological features and vegetation; it will not significantly disrupt natural processes or existing ecosystems; and it will provide for the restoration and rehabilitation of natural character where that is appropriate and practicable.42 The beds of rivers are to be managed in a manner which provides for infrastructure.43

[131] Schedule B of the One Plan defines values for water bodies. The NOR falls within the Mana 9 (Upper Gorge), Mana 10 (Middle Manawatū), Mana 9c (Mangaatua), Mana 10a (Middle Manawatū) and Mana 10d (Lower Pohangina) water management sub-zones surface water management zones and the One Plan identifies a wide range of values for those wider zones.44 These values are to be recognised and provided for.45 Water quality is to be maintained where it meets water quality targets set out in Schedule E to the One Plan and enhanced where it does not. Fish passage is to be provided for. 4.1.6 Historic heritage and archaeology [132] Historic heritage is to be protected from activities that would significantly reduce heritage qualities.46 4.1.7 Indigenous biodiversity [133] Schedule F of the One Plan defines habitats that are rare, threatened or at-risk47 and these are to be recognised as areas of significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna and are to be protected. Other indigenous biodiversity is to be maintained. Indigenous biodiversity offsets can be considered in appropriate circumstances if they result in an overall net gain in biodiversity. However, offsets must not be used where they are inappropriate for the ecosystem or habitat type by reason of its rarity, vulnerability or irreplaceability.48 4.1.8 Tangata whenua values and interests [134] The values and interests of tangata whenua are to be identified and reflected in the management of freshwater and associated ecosystems.49 Sites of cultural significance to tangata whenua are to be protected. The need for tangata whenua to use traditional resources according to their cultural heritage

38 MDP. 39 NPSFM. 40 RPS. 41 MDP. 42 RPS Policy 6-9. 43 RPS Policy 6-9 and Objective 5-4. 44 Including aesthetics, contact recreation, amenity, mauri, industrial abstraction, irrigation, stock water, existing infrastructure, capacity to assimilate pollution, natural state, sites of significance riparian and aquatic and cultural, trout fishery (not outstanding or regionally significant), and flood control. 45 RPS Policy 5-1. 46 RPS 47 To qualify as At-risk the habitats must meet criteria set out in One Plan Policy 13-5. 48 RPS. 49NPSFM.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

is to be recognised.50 Clear procedures must be established to deal with the discovery of wahi tapu or wahi tupuna. 4.1.9 Network utilities and affected properties [135] Particular regard is to be given to the maintenance of generation output from the Te Āpiti wind farm (by requiring the protection of its assets) and the fact that even a minor reduction in generation output can cumulatively have significant adverse effects on generation output. To the extent reasonably possible, reverse sensitivity effects on the Te Āpiti wind farm are to be avoided.51

[136] As we noted earlier rail networks, the Te Āpiti wind farm in this case, high pressure gas pipelines, the National Grid and Powerco’s transmission lines are to be recognised as physical resources of regional or national importance. Adverse effects, including reverse sensitivity effects, on these physical resources are to be avoided as far as is reasonably practicable52 or avoided outright.53 The effective operation of the electricity transmission network is to be recognised and provided for and to the extent reasonably possible, reverse sensitivity effects on that network are to be avoided and its operation is not to be compromised.54

[137] Affected private properties are to have adverse effects on them avoided, remedied or mitigated, including as required under provisions that address noise, social and visual amenity as discussed above. 4.1.10 Natural hazards [138] The adverse effects of natural hazard events on infrastructure are to be avoided or mitigated. New critical infrastructure in a 1 in 200-year floodplain and areas affected by other natural hazards is to be avoided unless the infrastructure itself will not be adversely affected, it will not cause any adverse effects on the environment (including avoiding where practicable increases in risk to human life, property and infrastructure) and it will not significantly increase the scale or intensity of the hazard.55 Significant reductions in the ability of a river to convey flood flows and floating debris are to be avoided.56 Development in hazard prone areas is to be minimised.57 4.1.11 Stormwater, erosion and sediment control [139] Accelerated erosion and increased sedimentation in waterbodies caused by vegetation clearance and land disturbance are to be avoided as far as reasonably practicable, or else remedied or mitigated,58 and managed on-site.59 Earthworks should be of a scale to avoid visual amenity effects and be designed to minimise the risk of land instability and erosion and effects on overland flow paths.60 Rehabilitation measures should be undertaken to avoid accelerated erosion following earthworks.61 4.2 Other Statutes 4.2.1 Land Transport Management Act 2003 [140] NZTA is the statutory body charged with operating the State Highway network under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA).

[141] NZTA’s statutory objective under the LTMA is to "undertake its functions in a way that contributes to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest”.62

50 MDP. 51 NPSREG. 52 RPS Policy 3-2. 53 PNCDP, MDP. 54 NPSET. 55 RPS 56 RPS Policy 5-22. 57 TDP. 58 RPS Objective 4-2. 59 MDP. 60 MDP. 61 MDP. 62 Section 84, LTMA.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[142] NZTA’s statutory functions are defined in s95(1) of the LTMA. Of relevance to the Project, the functions of NZTA include: a) to contribute to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest (…) b) to manage the State Highway system, including planning, funding, design, supervision, construction and maintenance and operations, in accordance with this Act and the Government Roading Powers Act 1989 (…) (e) to manage funding of the land transport system (…)

[143] In meeting its objective and undertaking these functions, NZTA is required by the LTMA to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility, while using revenue in a way that seeks value for money.63

[144] The LTMA requires the Minister of Transport to issue a Government Policy Statement (GPS) every three financial years.64 The GPS enables the Minister of Transport to guide NZTA (and the broader land transport sector) on the outcomes, objectives, and short- to medium-term goals that the Government wishes to achieve through the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) and from the allocation of the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).65

[145] The LTMA provides that NZTA must give effect to the GPS when carrying out its planning functions, including preparing a NLTP.66 The NLTP must also contribute to the purpose of the LTMA, which is to “contribute to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest”.67

[146] As Sarah Downs, Portfolio Manager for NZTA, explained in her evidence, the NLTP sets out NZTA’s planned land transport investments, including for New Zealand's State Highways, over the next three years. Activities are not eligible for funding from the NLTF unless they are included in the NLTP.

[147] The current NLTP, which outlines NZTA’s investment programme between 2018 and 2021, gives effect to the GPS by setting out activities proposed for funding over that three-year period. This states:68 “The indefinite closure of the Manawatū Gorge and the temporary closure of SH1 after serious storms has shown the need for a resilient land transport system that keeps routes to key destinations and the region’s communities open.” The NLTP lists the development of the Project as a key priority for the Transport Agency, with an initial amount of $122m to be invested “to create a safer and more resilient route across central New Zealand, linking up the east and west with the Manawatū and Wellington” in the 2018-21 NLTP (with the balance of funding to be earmarked in the 2021-24 NLTP) 4.2.2 Rangitane o Manawatū Claims Settlement Act 2016 [148] The purpose of this Act is to record the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Rangitane o Manawatū in the deed of settlement and to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement that settles the historical claims of Rangitane o Manawatū.

[149] The Act includes a summary of the historical account relevant to the settlement and records the texts of the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown. The Act also provides for cultural and commercial redress.

63 Section 96, LTMA. 64 Sections 84 and 86, LTMA. 65 6 Section 84, LTMA. 66 In accordance with s89(1) of the LTMA, the Transport Agency must give effect to the GPS when performing its functions under subpart 1 of Part 2 of the LTMA in respect of land transport planning and funding. 67 Section 19B, LTMA. 68 At page 75.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

4.2.3 Rangitane Tu Mai Ra (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-a Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017 [150] The purpose of this Act is to record the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Rangitane Tu Mai Ra (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-a Rua) in the deed of settlement and to give effect to certain of its provisions that settle the historical claims of Rangitane Tu Mai Ra (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-a Rua).

[151] The Act includes a summary of the historical account relevant to the settlement and records the texts of the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown. The Act also provides for cultural and commercial redress.

[152] The 2016 and 2017 Settlement Acts were comprehensively addressed by NZTA. We adopt the descriptions and details provided within their technical assessments for both our considerations and our recommendations. We address these matters in sections 5.1.8 and 5.2.8 of this Report. 4.2.4 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 [153] The purpose of this Act is to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand. The Act requires all persons performing functions and exercising powers under the Act to recognise the principle that historic places have lasting value in their own right and provide evidence of the origins of New Zealand’s distinct society.

[154] Also, persons must recognise that the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of New Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage should take account of all relevant cultural values, knowledge and disciplines, material of cultural heritage value and involve the least possible alteration or loss of it. Safeguarding the options of present and future generations is to be provided for, as is fully researching, documenting and recording heritage values.

[155] The principle that there is value in Central government agencies, local authorities, corporations, societies, tangata whenua, and individuals working collaboratively in respect of New Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage is also to be recognised. The relationship of Maori and their cultural and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tupuna, wahi tapu and other taonga is to be recognised.

[156] We address these matters primarily in sections 5.1.6 and 5.2.6 of this Report and recommended Condition 31 regarding an accidental discovery protocol and an archaeological authority. 4.2.5 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 [157] The intention of Parliament expressed within this Act is that the powers, duties, indiscretions conferred under it are to be exercised by the Maori Land Court as far as possible in a manner that facilitates and promotes the retention, use, development and control of Maori land by Maori owners their families and their descendants and in a way that protects wahi tapu.

[158] This Act is not overly relevant to our assessment of the NOR, particularly as we make no attempt to resolve competing claims of mana whenua over the land through which the new road will pass. 4.2.6 Wildlife Act 1953 [159] The Wildlife Act provides for absolute protection of certain wildlife throughout New Zealand. The Act declares certain wildlife to be game and certain wildlife to be partially protected. The Act enables hunting of certain wildlife subject to conditions imposed by the relevant Minister of the Crown. It contains provisions dealing with terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates, marine species, wildlife sanctuaries, refuges and reserves.

[160] The relevance of the Wildlife Act to the NOR is that authorisations under s53 of the Act (applications are considered by the Director-General of Conservation) may be required to relocate any indigenous lizards, bats or birds residing within the NOR boundary. Accordingly, reference to any such necessary authorisations is made in Conditions 20, 21 and 22 that respectively address management plans for lizards, bats and avifauna.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

4.2.7 Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act 1977 [161] This Act establishes the Queen Elizabeth (QEII) the Second National Trust and provides for the Trust’s membership and operation. The functions and powers of the Trust are generally to encourage and promote for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations of the people of New Zealand, the provision, protection, preservation, and enhancement of open space. This includes the identification and classification of potential reserves and recreation areas as being of national, regional, local or special significance.

[162] Relevantly the Trust can negotiate the execution of open space covenants and the acquisition in its own name of any open space. The Trust is provided with the power to regulate in terms of such covenants public access to land which is subject to a covenant.

[163] Relevantly here, the NOR traverses two QEII covenants containing indigenous vegetation in gullies situated on land owned by Joseph Graham Bolton. We address that matter in section 5.2.7 of this Report. 4.3 Other Strategic and Planning Documents [164] The AEE69 listed a series of transport related plans and documents that NZTA considered to be directly relevant to our assessment of the NOR and which in their opinion should be considered under s171(1)(d) of the RMA. The s42A report authors did the same.70 We comment briefly on these plans and documents below. 4.3.1 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) [165] We briefly referred to the GPS in section 4.2.1 of this Report. The GPS 2018/19 – 2027/28 sets out the Government’s strategy for land transport investment. It prioritises safety and access alongside the environment and value for money. It supports investment towards improving the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, recognising that improving the safety of these activities is key to improving accessibility and encouraging uptake, as well as enabling transport choice. 4.3.2 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) [166] We also briefly referred to the NLTP in section 4.2.1 of this Report. The NLTP 2018 – 2021 gives effect to the GPS. It identifies the Project as a key priority and component of the State Highway resilience programme. Funding is allocated for the Project’s design and construction. 4.3.3 Horizons Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) [167] The RLTP has a number of objectives and strategic priorities including a reliable multi-modal transport system with less modal conflict, including walking and cycling, that mitigates potential environmental effects and improves environmental outcomes. 4.3.4 Horizons Regional Pest Management Strategy 2017 -2037 (PMS) [168] The AEE listed the PMS as being relevant insofar as it will inform any pest management mitigation that might be required should the NOR be confirmed. We find that to be an operational matter of little consequence here. 4.3.5 Manawatū River Leaders Accord 2010 [169] This non-statutory document relates to a multi-party commitment to improve water quality in the Manawatū River. While the AEE listed it as a relevant other matter we defer to the RMA statutory documents that address water quality, noting that matter will be more fully addressed under the regional consents process to follow. 4.3.6 Growing Manawatū – MDC Economic Growth Strategy [170] This document was also listed in the AEE. It seeks to support the region’s economy and enable resilience. While we find this document to be of little direct relevance, we observe that progressing the Project would

69 Volume 2, section 45.3, Table 37. 70 Section 6.9.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

address highlighted uncertainty regarding SH3 through the Gorge and also facilitate the achievement of the Growth Strategy outcomes. 4.3.7 Te Āpiti Masterplan [171] Both the AEE and the s42A report authors referred to the Te Āpiti Masterplan. We were informed it will seek to protect and enhance the Te Āpiti area, recognising multiple values and stakeholders. However, the document is still in draft form and is expected to be recommended for approval by the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group midway through 2019.71 We accordingly afford it little weight. However, we acknowledge NZTA’s intention to consult with the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group in the preparation Cultural and Environmental Design Framework and a number of management plans.72 4.3.8 Iwi Management Plans [172] The s42A report authors advised that there were no current iwi management plans that we should have particular regard to.

5.0 Application of Section 171

5.1 Established Existing Environment (section 171(1)) [173] In this part of our Report we briefly describe the established existing environment under the same suite of headings that we use in the relevant RMA instruments (section 4.1) and assessment of effects (section 5.2) parts of this Report. We have primarily drawn on information provided in the AEE,73 the s42A reports,74 submissions and evidence presented to the hearing. 5.1.1 Traffic and transport [174] Before the closure of SH3 through the Manawatū Gorge, this road carried some 7,600 vehicles per day (vpd) with Saddle Road carrying some 150vpd and the Pahiatua Track carrying some 2,200vpd. Closure of the Gorge Road has fundamentally changed the traffic environment with Saddle Road now carrying some 6,200vpd.75 This not only changed the effects on Saddle Road itself but has also significantly increased traffic demands through Ashhurst and on Woodville Road and Pinfold Road near Woodville. The Pahiatua Track now carries some 3,500vpd, however the effects of diversion of traffic to this route have been less significant. Travel times have also increased significantly from around 13 minutes pre- closure to around 22 minutes post closure.76 This has had a significant social and economic effect on local communities with the direct increase in travel costs being $60,000 per day or $22m per annum.77 NZTA assesses that the economy would lose $279m in terms of 2016 net present value over a 40 year period if the SH3 connection was not re-established.78

[175] Road safety has also been detrimentally affected with there being a significant increase in crashes on Saddle Road from 2 – 3 per year to 18 in the year following closure of the Gorge Road.79 As a response to this, and as a consequence of the significant increase in traffic demands along Saddle Road, NZTA has committed to a $4.5m upgrade project80 for Saddle Road which is currently underway, with a further $3m funding potentially being available for further works.

[176] A positive effect of the closure of the Gorge Road has been to reduce traffic demands at the SH3 / SH57 intersection.

71 Section 42A Report, section 6.9.5. We note a November 2018 draft of the TAMP was attached to the evidence of Ms Downs for NZTA. 72 McLeod, EIC, paragraph 287. 73 AEE, Volume 2, sections 4 to 7 and Volume 3 containing the various technical assessments. 74 S42A Technical Evidence: Planning, primarily section 8. 75 AEE Volume 3 Section 1 Figure 1.6 76 AEE Volume 3 Section 1 paragraph 56. 77 AEE Volume 3 Section 1 paragraph 65. 78 AEE Volume 3 Section 1 paragraph 66. 79 AEE Volume 3 Section 1 Table 1-3. 80 Memo of Counsel on behalf of NZTA 20 March 2019, Attachment 2.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

5.1.2 Noise and vibration [177] The existing noise and vibration environment is directly linked to traffic volumes. The closure of the Gorge Road has changed traffic flows as discussed in section 5.1.1 and this has had a consequential effect on noise and vibration. The assessment of existing noise conditions has been undertaken with reference to NZS 680681 in the absence of any NES82 or District Plan noise limits on road traffic noise.83

[178] Acoustic modelling shows that the result of this traffic diversion has been to expose some 100 houses in 84 Ashhurst to over 57 dB LAeq(24h). This is not an unusual noise level for an urban environment, however it is a significant change in relation to the pre-closure noise environment within Ashhurst.

[179] The existing noise environment along Woodlands Road to the east of Woodville has also degraded as a result of the Gorge Road closure.85

[180] Within Woodville itself, the noise environment has changed less as SH3 continues to be operational through the town, with around 39 Protected Premises and Facilities (PFFs)86 being subject to high levels of road traffic noise. Some reduction in noise and traffic related vibration has occurred between SH2 and Woodlands Road due to localised informal diversion of traffic around Woodville to the north. Within Woodville, there are currently around 45 houses exposed to over 57 dB LAeq(24h) and around 7 houses 87 exposed to over 64 dB LAeq(24h) .

[181] The informal diversion of traffic around Woodville has led to an increase in noise on Oxford Road, Pinfold Road and the outskirts of Woodville. On these roads, there are currently around 15 houses exposed to 88 over 57 dB LAeq(24h) and around 7 houses exposed to over 64 dB LAeq(24h).

[182] In terms of Saddle Road, traffic noise has increased since closure of the Gorge Road, however, there are few sensitive receptors along this route. No acoustic modelling of the Pahiatua Track was presented by NZTA experts to demonstrate its existing noise environment or the level of change since closure of the Gorge Road.

[183] In addition to the general changes to the noise environment outlined above, 20 PPFs have been identified89. In general, traffic noise at these 20 PPFs has either decreased or has increased but remained within the same noise category band under current conditions compared to pre-Gorge Road closure conditions.

90 [184] Specifically, traffic noise at 1213 Fitzherbert Road has benefited from a 2 dB LAeq(24h) reduction in noise since the closure of the Gorge Road. Other houses along Napier Road (Ashhurst) are also likely to have benefitted from a reduction in traffic related noise as a result of the closure91. All other areas through which the proposed new road passes are currently subject to a low level of noise mostly related to wind, natural sounds, wind turbine noise and distant traffic noise.

[185] Road-traffic vibration has not been modelled, however it has been reported as increasing at a number of PPFs in Ashhurst92 as a result of the increased traffic demands.

81 New Zealand Standard 6806:2010 Acoustics –Road Traffic Noise – New and altered roads. 82 National Environmental Standard. 83 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraph 60. 84 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraph 41, AEE Volume 4 Drawing No N-02 Rev A 85 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraph 52, AEE Volume 4 Drawings No N-01 Rev A and N-02 Rev A. 86 PPFs include houses, schools, visitor accommodation and other locations as defined in NZS 6806. 87 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraph 53, AEE Volume 4 Drawings No N-01 Rev A and N-02 Rev A. 88 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraph 55, AEE Volume 4 Drawings No N-01 Rev A and N-02 Rev A. 89 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 Noise and Vibration Assessment by Dr Chiles Table 2.4. 90 The Rogers property located at the SH3/SH57 intersection – add references to discussions with submitter and Lloyd evidence 91 Lloyd EIC Section 24. 92 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraph 100.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

5.1.3 Social [186] The existing social environment involves the local community, principally Ashhurst and Woodville, and the regional community, namely the wider community dependent on SH3 as an east-west link across the Ruahine Ranges. 93

[187] The townships of Ashhurst and Woodville are located at either extent of the NOR. Ashhurst had approximately 2,800 residents at the 2013 census, with a large proportion of family-age residents.94 Community facilities include a library, churches, aquatic centre, sports grounds, community centre as well as a primary school, kindergarten and play centre.95

[188] Ashhurst has experienced a significant increase in through-traffic (6,000vpd) since the closure of the Gorge Road in 201796 affecting the predominantly residential streets of Cambridge Avenue, Mulgrave Road and Salisbury Street which also provide direct access to community facilities such as Ashhurst School, Learning Adventures Childcare and Ashhurst Domain. This has resulted in additional noise and vibration, causing potential disturbance and general nuisance for residents (such as sleep disturbance) and safety risks, particularly around Ashhurst School. 97

[189] Woodville has a smaller and typically older population than Ashhurst, with 1,400 residents at the 2013 census.98 The centre of Woodville (Vogel Street SH2/SH3) has experienced a 40% reduction in traffic since the closure of the Gorge Road.99 In contrast, significantly more vehicles are using Oxford Road and Pinfold Road as an informal bypass.100

[190] An east-west link across the Ruahine Ranges is important to regional and local communities for the purposes of employment, education, social, recreational, health and retail activities. The need to use the Saddle Road and the Pahiatua Track has resulted in increases in commuter business time and costs, a decrease in travel time reliability, and an increase in traffic and road safety issues.101

[191] Manawatū Gorge and the wider Te Āpiti area is an important recreation resource with considerable potential for tourism. Recreational opportunities centre on walking tracks through the Gorge, camping and water-based activities at each end of the Gorge, mountain biking and horse treks.102 Te Āpiti Masterplan is currently being developed by the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group, which will be underpinned by five principles, including recreation. 5.1.4 Landscape and visual amenity [192] The NOR primarily traverses steep hill country pastoral farmland with deeply incised gullies containing remnant indigenous vegetation and exotic scrub. The Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve to the south of the Project contains extensive indigenous forest and provides a contrast to the surrounding farmland. The Project crosses a number of small streams, all of which flow into either the Manawatū or Pohangina Rivers. As depicted in the AEE, at a broad scale the landscape comprises several landforms, namely mountain ranges, hills, plains and terraces.103 At a NOR scale the AEE identified five different landscape character areas104 while the supporting landscape technical assessment referred to six landscape sectors (which we find to be more informative): . Bridge to bridge;

93 AEE Volume 2; Section 6.3, page 17-18. 94 Austin; S42A Technical Evidence: Social Impact; paragraph 34. 95 AEE Volume 2: Section 6.3, page 18. 96 Austin: S42A Technical Evidence: Social Impact; paragraph 35. 97 Ibid; paragraph 36. 98 Ibid; paragraph 38. 99 Austin: S42A Technical Evidence: Social Impact; paragraph 39. 100 Ibid; paragraph 39. 101 Ibid; paragraph 44. 102 Mr Baker: S42 A Technical Evidence: Recreation; page 38. 103 AEE, Volume 2, Section 7.1 and Figure 10. 104 AEE, Volume 2, pages 22 and 23: Manawatū and Pohangina River terraces, western hill country, Ruahine ridge crest, eastern hill country, and Manawatū River valley.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

. New Manawatū River bridge; . Western slope; . Te Āpiti wind farm and ridge; . Eastern slope; and . Woodville gateway. [193] These six landscape sectors were described in the AEE105 and we adopt those descriptions. We note that the NOR crosses three Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONLs), namely the Manawatū Gorge, Ruahine Ridgeline and Pohangina Valley ONLs.

[194] In terms of visual effects, the potential viewing audiences of the Project are limited because of its distance from Ashhurst and Woodville and the intervening screening effects of topography and vegetation. The AEE106 concluded that the primary area where a high level of potentially adverse visual effects might arise was at the proposed location of the new bridge across the Manawatū River. 5.1.5 Natural character [195] The AEE described the component parts of natural character,107 noting that there were no streams or rivers intersected by the NOR that had outstanding natural character. The Manawatū Gorge, at the proposed new bridge location, was assessed as having a ‘moderate to high’ level of natural character. Three streams crossed by the NOR were assessed as having ‘high’ natural character: . a stream in the western QEII area which flows into an area of raupo wetland (chainage 4000 to 6000);108 . a stream in the eastern QEII area (chainage 6100 to 6500); and . a stream crossing associated with an existing construction access track from Saddle Road. 5.1.6 Historic heritage and archaeology [196] There are no known archaeological or historic heritage features within the NOR corridor. The new bridge across the Manawatū River will be located close to, but will not encroach upon, the culturally significant Parahaki Island.

[197] It is possible that unrecorded subsurface remains may be exposed during the new road’s construction, particularly given pre-European and historic Māori settlement that was located along the banks of the Pohangina and Manawatū Rivers. However, there is only a low potential of unrecorded sites being encountered in the steep and rugged Ruahine Ranges between Ashhurst and Woodville.109 5.1.7 Indigenous biodiversity [198] Much of the original indigenous vegetation along the NOR has been cleared and converted to pastoral landuse, interspersed with small areas of exotic forest, gorse and willow. Exceptions to this are forest remnants situated in gully systems, some of which are protected by QEII Trust covenants. The AEE110 identified ten distinct indigenous terrestrial ecosystem types, ranging from old growth forests with very high ecological values to manuka, kanuka and divaricating shrublands with low ecological values. Eight ecosystem types were assessed as significant, by reference to One Plan Policy 13-5.111

[199] The AEE notes that the area traversed by the NOR may contain ‘At-Risk’ lizards and long-tailed bats, although NZTA’s field surveys and information reviews did not detect any. The mature and older

105 AEE, Volume3, Technical Assessment #4. 106 Ibid. 107 Comprising freshwater and terrestrial ecology, stream morphology, water quality, landscape context and experiential aspects. 108 All chainage is as shown on Indicative Alignment Plans A-01 to A-10 dated October 2018. 109 Statement of Evidence of Dr Rodney Edward Clough (Historic Heritage and Archaeology) on Behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, 8 March 2019. 110 AEE, Volume 2, Section 7.3 and Table 6. 111 Forbes, EIC, paragraph 10: Old growth forests (alluvial and hill country), secondary broadleaved forests with old growth signatures, old growth treelands, kanuka forests, raupo dominated seepage wetlands, indigenous dominated seepage wetlands, and exotic dominated seepage wetlands.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

regenerating forest may contain ‘At-Risk’ or ‘Threatened’ invertebrates, but again NZTA’s desktop review did not identify any. The Manawatū River’s shingle bed supports a wide range of bird species, as do the old-growth forest areas. Some of these species are ‘Threatened’ or ‘At-Risk’.112 5.1.8 Tangata whenua values and interests [200] NZTA’s approach to understanding cultural values and issues of significance to tangata whenua is underpinned by a commitment to working in partnership with iwi that reflects the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.113 In this regard, Rangitane o Manawatū, Rangitane Tu Mai Ra (Wairarapa Tamaki Nui-a-Rua), Ngati Kahungunu ki Tamaki Nui-a-Rua and Ngati Raukawa have identified an interest in the Project and have been formally engaged as Iwi Partners by NZTA. This inclusive approach to tangata whenua engagement was not supported by Rangitane who asserted exclusive mana whenua rights to the area on the basis of their longstanding ancestral connection.114 On the other hand, Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Raukawa acknowledged the different historical associations and interests of the respective iwi, and expressed a strong desire to work collaboratively with all iwi groups, including with Rangitane. We note in this regard that ‘mana whenua’ issues are for Maori to determine in accordance with tikanga and it is not our role to seek to define or resolve those matters.

[201] Treaty settlements provide important context to the Project and contain obligations that must be considered as part of the NOR assessment process. The Rangitane o Manawatū Claims Settlement Act 2016, the Rangitane Tu Mai Ra (Wairarapa Tamaki Nui-a-Rua) Claims Settlement Act 2017 and the initialled Deed of Settlement between the Crown and Ngati Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tamaki Nui-a-Rua describe the traditional relationships of tangata whenua with the land and resources within their respective tribal areas (including the area of the NOR).115 These Treaty settlements also include statutory acknowledgements and recognitions in respect of the Manawatū River and tributaries, the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve and the Pohangina River which impose additional obligations to ensure the protection of cultural values. We understand that Ngati Raukawa is still working towards finalising their Treaty settlement with the Crown, nevertheless they have identified an interest in the Project based on their historical and whakapapa connections to the area.

[202] The wider Manawatū, Whanganui and Wairarapa areas are rich with cultural associations having been settled and occupied by various iwi, including Rangitane, Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Raukawa.116 The Manawatū Gorge is recognised by iwi as one of the main routes connecting the east and west and is named Te Āpiti, meaning the narrow passage that is situated between two mountain ranges, Te Hononga Maunga.117 The Gorge (and the adjoining Ranges) also encompass a range of cultural and spiritual values, including geological and landscape features and mahinga kai. Maori settlement in the area has been concentrated along the margins of rivers, with the rivers and surrounding forest being abundant sources of food. A carved rock on the hilltop near Saddle Road marks a battle site where an illustrious ancestor, Turanga, was killed. Turanga was buried there and the waahi tapu site was subsequently named Te Ahu a Turanga, the mound of Turanga.118 This site was identified as extremely significant for iwi and subsequently it was agreed with NZTA that the new road would not impact on the site.

[203] The Project traverses a deeply significant cultural landscape and Cultural Values Statements were prepared by iwi to further clarify potential effects of the Project on tangata whenua values, and to assist in the development of mitigation measures to address potential adverse effects.119 The key cultural issues summarised in the NOR application documentation include how the preferred option interacts with significant cultural sites; how to maintain a connection with the culturally and spiritually significant Manawatū Gorge; what the impacts are on the environment (wetlands, rivers, former pa sites and stands

112 AEE, Volume 2, Section 7.3 and Table 7. 113 AEE, Volume 2, Section 33.1. 114 Proctor, EIC, paragraph 5. 115 AEE, Volume 2, Section 6.4. 116 Ibid, Section 6.1, page 12. 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid, Section 6.1, page 13. 119 The Cultural Values Statements are included in Volume 3 of the AEE.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

of vegetation), and in particular for the Te Āpiti Whenua Trust, whether and how any bridge structures would impact on Parahaki Island and the Manawatū River flow.120 5.1.9 Network utilities and affected properties [204] The NOR impacts a number of existing network utilities including Kiwirail’s Palmerston North to Gisborne railway, Meridian’s Te Āpiti wind farm, First Gas’ Tararua high pressure gas pipeline, Transpower’s Mangamaire to Woodville A 110kv National Grid transmission line, and Powerco’s local transmission network. In terms of affected private properties, there around twenty residences adjoining or within 200m of the NOR and ten properties are traversed by it.

[205] The NOR also bisects the AgResearch owned Ballantrae Hill Country Research Station. 5.1.10 Natural hazards [206] The NOR traverses a seismically active area containing a number of active faults, including the Wellington and Mohaka Faults. This poses a risk of rockfalls, landslides and ground rupture should earthquakes occur. The rivers and streams crossed by the NOR are all subject to periodic flooding. In severe rainfall events the hill country through which the NOR passes is prone to landslips. 5.2 Assessment of Effects (section 171(1)) [207] In undertaking our assessment of effects on the environment of allowing the requirement we acknowledge that s171(1B) of the RMA provides for consideration of effects which may include any positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will result or may result from the activity enabled by the Designation, as long as those effects result from measures proposed or agreed to by the requiring authority.

[208] So, to be clear, in this section of our Report when considering effects, we have taken into account any positive effects on the environment. 5.2.1 Traffic and transport [209] Nearly all parties agree that there is a fundamental need to recreate the SH3 road link between Ashhurst and Woodville. The primary matters of contention have related to the design and layout of the new road and, to some extent, its location. There was no debate between the experts as to whether road safety and travel times for motorised traffic will be improved by the Project. We agree with the various experts that these beneficial effects will be significant. 5.2.1.1 Active travel modes (walking and cycling) [210] Throughout the hearing, the key traffic and transportation matter for consideration has been in relation to the provision for walking and cycling as part of the Project. Considerable and considered evidence121 was put before the Panel in relation to the desirability of providing a separated shared walking and cycling path alongside the Project for its full extent from Ashhurst to Woodville. This did not originally form part of the Project. However, in their Reply submissions NZTA committed to the provision of a separated shared pathway, alongside a range of other specific facilities that were agreed to during the course of the hearing.

[211] We have therefore recommended Condition 36 requiring the provision of a separated shared path. NZTA suggested that the configuration and detail of that pathway be left to the detailed design process and that it be provided as soon as practicable. We find that more certainty is required and we favour the type of condition recommended to us by s42A author Harriet Fraser.122

[212] Accordingly, Condition 36 specifies that the shared path is to be in place when the new road is opened, be separated from the carriageway of the new road by, at minimum, a wire barrier; it must be designed

120 Ibid, Section 22. 121 Section 42A Technical Evidence: Traffic and Transport, by: Harriet Fraser, EIC of Mr Read on behalf of Palmerston North City Council, Submitter # 316 ‘Build the Path’ and others. 122 Section 42A Technical Evidence: Traffic and Transport, By: Harriet Fraser, paragraph 206(d).

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

and constructed in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A Appendix A Figure A1: Bicycle Path Operation Scenario C; it must have a minimum sealed width of at least 3.0 metres for the entire length of the road; and it must have a minimum width of 0.2m clearance from any barrier. 5.2.1.2 Construction traffic [213] It is accepted that construction traffic represents an unavoidable effect for such a major construction project such as this. However, effects can be managed so that they are minimised as far as practicable. Section 5.2.2.2 considers the noise and vibration effects arising from construction activities, including construction traffic and we do not need to discuss that matter further here. 5.2.1.3 Network integration [214] The AEE recognised that the Project is likely to have a detrimental effect on the operation of the SH3 / Cambridge Road intersection in Ashhurst.123 As a result of that, intersection upgrades are proposed to mitigate those effects, with the upgrades to be undertaken before, or as part of, the Project.

[215] The integration of the Project with the existing road network was raised by s42A author Ms Fraser. In her opinion, the Project should include upgrades to the SH3 / SH2 intersection in Woodville as traffic volumes are expected to increase to a degree such that they will have a detrimental effect on the operation of this intersection. Ms Fraser stated that “…there is no worse level of service than an F”124 and that “… the Project makes a bad situation worse”125 . However, David Dunlop was of the view that this intersection “would not operate particularly well with or without the Project in the opening year (2025)”126. In his view, this indicated the need for a wider consideration of the issue. Whilst we agree with Ms Fraser’s view that the Project will make a bad situation worse, we also acknowledge that there is an existing issue in relation to the operation of the SH2/SH3 that is not related to the Project.

[216] Whether SH3 traffic uses the old Gorge Road or the new Project alignment, other than the local and informal diversion that people are following around Woodville, the demand at the SH2/SH3 intersection would be the same. Given the local diversion effects have potentially been addressed by recent works at the Woodlands Road / SH2 and Woodlands Road / Oxford Road intersections to encourage the use of Woodlands Road to access Woodville and SH2, the key matter for us to consider is therefore whether, if the underlying problem were to be addressed independently of the Project, would the Project then result in an unacceptable level of service at SH2/SH3. From the evidence presented, it is our view that this would not be the case.127 As such, we prefer the evidence of Mr Dunlop. 5.2.1.4 Meridian over-dimension vehicle access [217] All vehicle access to the Te Apiti windfarm is currently from Saddle Road. The Project will sever the site and new means of access will need to be established for wind turbines lying to the south of the Project. The concept design for the Project demonstrates that over-dimension load access can be provided via new connections to the new road at approximately chainage 5850m and 8340m, with an underpass for day to day access being provided at chainage 8050m.

[218] Tony Keyte (an engineering witness for Meridian) states that “ Whilst the proposed underpass provides a degree of connectivity between northern and southern parts of the wind farm, it will not be suitable for the transportation of oversize components.128 The over-dimension loads can be up to 37m long129 and up to 4.9m high130 and whilst the detailed design for the access road remains to be completed, we accept Mr Keyte’s evidence that it is unlikely to be feasible to use an underpass without there being a considerable vertical and horizontal alignment implications for the wind farm access roads.131

123 AEE Volume 3 Section 1 paragraph 131. 124 EIC Ms Fraser paragraph 103 (f). 125 EIC Ms Fraser paragraph 103 (f). 126 EIC Mr Dunlop paragraph 22. 127 EIC Mr Dunlop Appendix A. 128 EIC Mr Keyte paragraph 46. 129 Blade length EIC Mr Keyte paragraph 35. 130 Nacelle height EIC Mr Keyte paragraph 33. 131 EIC Mr Keyte paragraphs 55 and 56.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[219] We acknowledge that Saddle Road is currently used for over dimension load delivery, however we prefer Mr Keyte’s evidence that the Project will represent a better and more appropriate means of access that appropriately uses the strategic rather than local road network. We therefore recommend that access for over dimension loads be provided from both eastbound and westbound carriageways at approximately chainage 8340m (the indicative design on Indicative Alignment plan A-05 only shows an accessway on the westbound carriageway at that point), including removable median barrier gates, and lay-bys for left turning east and west-bound vehicles, as well as carriageway (shoulder) and curve widening at the main entrances.132 5.2.1.5 Traffic and transport conditions [220] We have carefully considered the conditions proposed by both NZTA and the s42A authors in relation to traffic and transportation aspects of the Project. In general, we support the principles of the conditions put forward by NZTA, albeit it with some suggested rewording, however there are some exceptions.

[221] Condition 35 relates to the timing of provision for pedestrian and cyclist facilities on the Ashhurst Bridge. The provision of this facility is included within NZTA Condition 26(b)(iv), however we prefer the s42A authors’ approach of having this as a separate condition133 to give greater clarity.

[222] Condition 36 sets out the extent and minimum standards for the provision of an off-road shared walking and cycling path as part of the Project. We recognise that NZTA has committed to the principle of provision “…as soon as reasonably practicable”,134 however we prefer the condition135 proposed by the s42A authors in terms of specifying that that shared path should be provided before the new road is opened. We also consider that the NOR conditions should confirm the path’s extent, which is in accordance with the works proposed by NZTA themselves when considering the extension of the Lindaur Trail from Hampson Street to the eastern roundabout,136 and NZTA’s commitment to connecting the Ashhurst bridge with the Western Car Park137 and the shared facility across the Ashhurst bridge itself.138 In our view, this gives ample time for NZTA to consider the location and design of the shared path and to consult with relevant landowners in relation to its provision. It importantly provides certainty that the shared path will be built. Similarly, we prefer the specification of a minimum standard that is in accordance with NZ technical standards.139 However, in Condition 36 we have specified a minimum sealed width of 3.0 metres for the entire length of the new road along with a minimum width of 0.2m clearance from any barrier.

[223] Condition 37 relates to the design of pedestrian and walking facilities, as well as viewing platforms, on the new Manawatū River bridge. The NZTA condition set included reference to the provision of this facility within the outline plan (construction works) in that a walking facility should be included if practicable.140 The s42A authors preferred that the viewing platform(s) be included on the bridge141 and we agree that is appropriate from a cultural and visual effects perspective.

[224] Condition 38 is a new condition offered by NZTA which would provide up to $1 million to fund recreational paths that connect the new shared path. We acknowledge this to be a generous offer for which NZTA is to be commended. However, under NZTA’s proposal the recreational path funding would only be available for the duration of the construction period. We consider instead that the entirety of the fund should be spent on providing the recreational paths and have recommended accordingly.

132 EIC Mr Keyte paragraphs 51 and 52. 133 S42A Team Condition 26B 134 NZTA Condition 26 (c) Network Integration. 135 S42 A Condition 26 C. 136 NZTA Condition 26 (b)(ii). 137 NZTA Condition 26 (b)(iii). 138 NZTA Condition 26 (b)(iv). 139 S42A Condition 26 D. 140 NZTA Condition 5(e)(viii). 141 S42A Condition PN2(c)(vi)B.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[225] We have recommended that Condition 38 as put forward by NZTA is amended to clarify its intent, as was suggested in the comments on conditions provided by the s42A authors and PNCC. 5.2.1.6 Traffic and transport findings [226] We find that: (a) The new road is necessary and its timely provision is strongly supported by the statutory instruments that we summarised in section 4.1 of this Report; (b) The new road will provide significant journey time and road safety benefits for motorised travel modes; (c) The indicative design and alignment is suitable to meet the needs of motorised traffic, with the road safety audit and detailed design processes being suitable to allow for the refinement of the Project as it progresses; (d) Considerable beneficial road safety effects will occur as a result of NZTA’s commitment to provide a separated shared path for pedestrians and cyclists from Ashhurst to Woodville. This will include a new shared path across the existing Ashhurst Bridge and extension of the Lindauer Trail from Woodville to a point west of the eastern roundabout at Woodville Road; and (e) It is appropriate for over-dimension vehicle access to Te Āpiti windfarm to be provided from the Project from both eastbound and westbound carriageways. 5.2.2 Noise and vibration [227] The Panel appreciates the efforts of Dr Stephen Chiles and Nigel Lloyd in their roles as expert witnesses on noise and vibration matters for their prompt expert witness conferencing and their pragmatic and professional approach to their roles. The clarity of their evidence and their joint witness statement has greatly assisted our understanding of, and focus on, the relevant matters. 5.2.2.1 Operational noise and vibration [228] Operational noise and vibration effects were addressed for NZTA in Volume 3 of the AEE and the evidence of Dr Chiles. It was concluded that the Project would have a significant positive effect on noise and vibration for properties within Ashhurst. There would also be a benefit to the PPFs close to the road which have reported vibration issues related to increased heavy vehicle movements, however this was not quantified by either Dr Chiles or Mr Lloyd. For Woodlands Road, Oxford Road and Pinfold Road, there are likely to be significant beneficial effects. These may be perceived as returning to ‘normal’ for residents and other PPFs along those routes.142

[229] The acoustic modelling identified that there would be some 17 PPFs along Napier Road subject to a modest increase in noise levels of around 4 dB LAeq(24h), however the overall noise exposure would be high and would result in a significant adverse noise effect.143 Similarly, the effect of the Project is to increase road traffic noise significantly at a further 11 PPFs.144 Dr Chiles considered both of these noise effects to be significant and they could not be avoided. He recommended that they could be mitigated through the use of a porous asphalt road surface145, an approach agreed with by Mr Lloyd. We agree with this recommendation.

[230] Dr Chiles also identified that the introduction of the Project to the eastern slopes would have a minor adverse noise effect146 associated with both general road noise and heavy vehicle engine braking. Andrew Whaley identified that noise bunding or acoustic fencing would not be suitable for mitigating noise effects in this area for landscape and visual effects reasons. Dr Chiles therefore recommended that a low noise porous asphalt surface be extended for 1.5km along the Project from the eastern roundabout.147 We note that in the Reply conditions NZTA offered to extend the low noise surface for 2km and we agree that is

142 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraph 101. 143 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 para 104. 144 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 para 116. 145 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paras 133,134. 146 AEE Volume 4 Drawing No N-04 Rev A. 147 AEE Volume 3 Section 2 paragraphs 142,143.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

appropriate. Engine braking would still be audible, but Dr Chiles considered the effects would be minor. Mr Lloyd identified two properties that would likely be adversely affected by noise from the eastern slopes and recommended that 75 Hope Road and 49807 SH3 be provided with insulation glazing. NZTA preferred an approach whereby the installation of noise mitigation works would be implemented should post-construction noise monitoring indicate that was necessary. We agree that the NZTA approach is preferable in the circumstances.

[231] In that regard we note that Condition 26 imposes noise limits and Condition 28(d)(ii)(F) and (I) for the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan requires identification of affected houses (which we understand would include the above dwellings) and other sensitive locations where noise and vibration criteria apply and a description of alternative mitigation strategies where compliance with the criteria may not be achieved. Those alternative strategies could of course involve acoustic treatment and ventilation of bedrooms if required.

[232] The nature of the remainder of the route is such that the formation of the Project appropriately constrains noise or otherwise there are no affected PPFs.

[233] In submissions, DOC raised the issue of noise effects of the project on the Western Car Park.148 Michael Briggs, a planning witness appearing for DOC, recommended in his evidence that a condition be imposed requiring that noise levels after completion of the Project be limited to pre-closure noise levels at the car park.149 Dr Chiles considered this to be unnecessary150 on the grounds that the car park would not reasonably be perceived as a remote natural area. We prefer Dr Chiles’ expert opinion and consider that most people using a car park adjacent to a state highway would accept traffic noise and that those using the Gorge itself will be unaffected. As such, we see no need for a condition of the type proposed by Mr Briggs.

[234] Mr and Mrs Rogers151 of 1213 Fitzherbert Road raised concerns in relation to future noise levels at their property. They acknowledged that they had considered possible noise issues when originally purchasing the property. However, they indicated concern that the new roundabout, even at 100m distance, was too close to their house and would change the braking behaviour of vehicles on SH3, causing in their opinion an increase in noise. Mr Shoebridge and Mrs Cooke152 of 49846 SH3 near Woodville had similar concerns in relation to noise effects and proximity of the eastern roundabout to this property.

[235] NZTA has responded positively to these concerns and recommended noise bunding to be provided as part of the Project; for roundabouts to be located as far as possible from the properties whilst remaining within the NOR boundary; and for a post-construction noise review that may result in the installation of insulation glazing. We support this approach. 5.2.2.2 Operational noise and vibration findings [236] We find that the operational noise and vibration effects arising from the Project can be suitably mitigated, consistent with the provisions of the district plans that we summarised in section 4.1 of this Report, based on the condition set attached to this Report which require: (a) Porous low noise asphalt surface for Napier Road, Vogel Street and 2km along the Project from the eastern roundabout; (b) Roundabouts being located as far as possible from PPFs subject to design and road safety constraints. They should be a minimum of 100m from houses; (c) Traffic lanes should be a minimum of 200m from 49807 SH3 and 75 Hope Road; (d) Noise bunds should be constructed at 1213 Fitzherbert Road and 49846 SH3;

148 The publicly available car park at the western boundary of the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve. 149 Pre closure noise measured at 65 dB LAeq(24h), Chiles EIC paragraph 65. 150 Chiles EIC paragraph 68. 151 Submitter 366. 152 Submitters 103 and 105.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

(e) Undertaking post-construction noise monitoring to determine if insulating glazing for liveable rooms facing the Project (or some other form of mitigation) is required at 49807 SH3, 75 Hope Road, 1213 Fitzherbert Road and 49846 SH3. 5.2.2.3 Construction noise and vibration [237] Notwithstanding that construction noise and vibration will be temporary effects, their impact has been considered by NZTA in the context of the existing environment. We accept that construction noise and vibration will occur and may exceed noise and vibration standards from time to time. There is no disagreement between the experts on this matter and they have made the following recommendations: a) Preparing a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan that details permissible noise and vibration limits, hours or operation, affected parties, monitoring, reporting, consultation and liaison, construction procedures and operations; b) Development of a Construction Traffic Management Plan which provides certainty about construction vehicle routes, times, consultation with affected parties, maintenance of property access throughout construction; c) The avoidance of Hope Road by construction traffic where practicable; d) Limiting the movements of construction traffic through Ashhurst and Woodville at night; and e) Requiring all construction vehicles to have noise suppression devises fitted to engine brakes.

[238] Dr Chiles and Mr Lloyd agreed that there will be minor adverse noise and vibration effects and whilst the above measures will mitigate these in the most part, there may be occasions where short term effects cannot be mitigated. At these times, high levels of consultation and liaison will be required and this will be specified in the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.

[239] Meridian and Transpower both raised concerns in relation to how construction vibration may affect their infrastructure. We understand that both parties are satisfied that these issues can be dealt with through imposition of an appropriate condition that requires NZTA to develop suitable procedures in consultation with each party. We agree that this approach provides for the potential effects of construction vibration to be mitigated. 5.2.2.4 Construction noise and vibration findings [240] We find that the above measures will provide mitigation of effects as far as is practicable for such a major construction project. We find that to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the district plans summarised in section 4.1 of this Report. 5.2.3 Social [241] Social effects of the new road were assessed for NZTA in Volume 3 of the AEE by geographer Amelia Linzey. She considered the effects of both road construction and the operation of the new road. Ms Linzey’s assessment was reviewed by s42A author Kirsty Austin who we understand generally agreed with Ms Linzey’s conclusions.153

[242] Potential adverse effects arising from road construction activities include increased disruption to users of Saddle Road, although that was not considered to be significant. There may also be increased adverse effects from additional construction related traffic in Ashhurst, especially at night. Woodville was not anticipated to be affected to the same extent, although construction traffic might reduce road safety and connectivity.

[243] As we have discussed in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of this Report, NZTA has proposed noise and vibration limits and a series of management plans to address construction traffic and noise154 and we have already

153 One area of disagreement related to the initial absence of a shared path along the Project route but as we discussed in section 5.2.1.1 of this Report that is no longer an issue. 154 Limits and assessment – construction noise (Condition 26), Limits and assessment – construction vibration (Condition 27), Construction Traffic Management Plan (Condition 29), Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Condition 28), and Construction Environmental Management Plan (Condition 14).

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

found those measures to be appropriate. In addition, Ms Linzey considered that community liaison and communication engagement mechanisms155 proposed by NZTA during the construction of the Project would enable issues to be responded to as and when they arose. We agree and find the community liaison and engagement mitigation measures proposed by NZTA to be suitable.

[244] Positive social effects of construction include economic activity generated by construction works and indirectly through spending by construction workers.

[245] In terms of operational social effects, Ms Linzey considered that once it was open to traffic, the new road would have long term and permanent positive social impacts arising from transportation benefits (see section 5.2.1 of this Report) and would include “… opportunities to improve social cohesion (connectivity between communities), enabling people to improve their way of life (reduced time in travel or reduced time wasted in travel time unreliability) and opportunities to further provide for their social and economic wellbeing (e.g. improved opportunities for economic activities between the east and west of the Ranges).”156

[246] We agree that the new road will result in significant positive social effects and we find that weighs very heavily in favour of confirming the NOR.

[247] Adverse social effects of the new road’s operation are largely limited to noise and visual amenity effects on existing dwellings located in close proximity to the road alignment. Those effects are able to be mitigated as we discuss in sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.9 of this Report.

[248] Many submissions raised matters relevant to social effects. Concerns included effects on peoples’ wellbeing, recreation opportunities, amenity and property values, and community engagement. A number of submitters expressed overall support for the Project, focussing primarily on its transport benefits.

[249] Specific submissions157 related to the continued provision of access to Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge facilities. We note that NZTA has proposed both a Western Car Park Construction Management Plan (Condition PN2) and a Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan (Condition PN3). Having reviewed the intended content of those plans we are satisfied that they adequately address the submitters’ concerns, noting that both plans must be must be prepared in consultation with the landowner, DOC, PNCC, Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group, the Project Iwi Partners, and the Community Liaison Group and must be consistent with the design principles and design outcomes in the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework.

[250] A number of submitters158 requested that the Project provides for the protection of the Lindauer Arts Trail that is intended to link to the Manawatū Gorge Loop Track. We understand that NZTA has committed to extend the existing pedestrian and cycling facility in Woodville further west, facilitating pedestrian and cycling access to the Ferry Reserve and delivering part of the proposed Arts Trail.159 This is now embodied in Condition 34(c)(iv)(B) which refers to extending the existing walkway from Hampson Street, Woodville to west of the new eastern roundabout. 5.2.3.1 Social findings [251] We find that: (a) while the Project will result in adverse construction and operational social effects, they will be reasonably mitigated by NZTA’s proposed conditions; (b) confirming the NOR will result in significant positive social effects, particularly once the new road is open; and

155 Community Liaison Person (Condition 10), Communications Management Plan (Condition 11), Community Liaison Group (Condition 12), and Complaints management (Condition 13). 156 Linzey, EIC, paragraph 23. 157 Including the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group and the Department of Conservation. 158 Bruce Hutton (submitter 297), Robin Winter (submitter 441) and Woodville District Vision (submitter 362). 159 Amelia Linzey; Statement of Evidence (Social Impact Assessment): 8 March 2019; paragraph 58.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

(c) the requirements of the statutory instruments, as summarised in section 4.1.3 of this Report, have been satisfied to the extent practicable, particularly in terms of the functioning and wellbeing of the community. 5.2.4 Landscape and visual amenity [252] Landscape and visual amenity effects were addressed for NZTA in Volume 3 of the AEE160 and the evidence of Boyden Evans. It was concluded that the Project would have adverse effects on landscape character as a result of the large-scale cut and fill earthworks within the Manawatū Gorge, Pohangina Valley and Ruahine Ridgeline Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL) areas; together with the clearance of areas of high-value indigenous vegetation which in several places is protected by QEII open space covenants.

[253] Mr Evans also considered that the Project would give rise to adverse visual amenity effects, but for the most part these could be readily mitigated, particularly given the limited viewing audience for the new road, which we referred to in section 5.1.4 of this Report.

[254] Adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity are unavoidable given that the new road will be a major new infrastructural element in the landscape, however those effects will be mitigated by landscape and amenity planting at strategic locations, planting indigenous vegetation along habitats fragmented by the road corridor, and by designing batter slopes and spoil disposal areas to integrate with adjoining natural landforms.161

[255] The new bridge across the Manawatū River will be an unavoidable and prominent visual element. The scale of the bridge and its contrast with its largely natural setting will unavoidably affect the landscape character of this part of the lower Manawatū River. However, the design of the bridge, the treatment of abutment earthworks, and mitigation planting can assist with integrating the bridge into its landscape setting.162

[256] NZTA’s landscape and visual assessment was reviewed by s42A author and landscape architect John Hudson. He accepted Mr Evans’ assessment and conclusions on landscape effects but was concerned that the road “crosses the grain of the steeply folded Ruahine Range.” We note that such a crossing is unavoidable for a road going from Ashhurst to Woodville. Mr Hudson also agreed with Mr Evans’ findings on visual amenity affects. He commented on views from the new road and how the road user experience could be enhanced, acknowledging that this was incorporated into the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework, which in turn is addressed by way of conditions.163

[257] Several submitters addressed landscape and visual effects. The Director-General of Conservation was concerned about the Western Car Park164 area and facilities near the proposed Manawatū River bridge. In that regard we find that the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework and Conditions PN2 (Western Car Park Construction Management Plan) and PN3 (Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan) provide adequate and clear direction as to the design, reinstatement and management of the car park area. The QEII Trust was concerned about effects on covenanted areas and we address that in section 5.2.7 of this Report. 5.2.4.1 Landscape and visual amenity findings [258] On balance we find: (a) traversing the Manawatū Gorge, Pohangina Valley and Ruahine Ridgeline ONLs is an unavoidable result of NZTA’s RMA s171(b) route selection process; (b) having particular regard to and weighing the provisions of Chapters 3 and 6 the RPS (One Plan - Part I) and the district plans that seek to provide for the establishment of regionally and nationally

160 Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway Project Technical Assessment #4 Landscape, Natural Character and Visual Effects. 161 Evans, EIC, paragraph 43. 162 Ibid, paragraph 44. 163 Ibid, paragraphs 113 and 114. 164 The car park at the western end of the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

important infrastructure; protect the characteristics and values of the three ONLs; and avoid significant cumulative adverse effects on those ONLs; the proposed new road is not an inappropriate form of use and development; (c) adverse effects on existing landscape character have been avoided as far as is reasonably practicable through NZTA’s route selection process and remaining adverse effects will be appropriately mitigated by way of Condition 17 (Landscape Management Plan) and the requirement for the Landscape Management Plan to be included as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan; (d) adverse effects on visual amenity are minor, apart from in relation to the new bridge across the Manawatū River where they can be mitigated; and (e) the requirements of the statutory instruments, as summarised in section 4.1.4 of this Report, have been satisfied to the extent practicable given the necessity for the new road to cross the Manawatū River and traverse the Ruahine Ranges.

[259] We also note that, while not an adverse effect on the environment of confirming the NOR as such, visual amenity for road users will be catered for by provisions of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework relating to the creation of memorable views for drivers descending the Ruahine Range, maintaining views of landscape features such as the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve and the Te Ᾱpiti wind farm, providing lookout points and safe stopping places, and designing bridges to enhance the experience of road users and not compete with or detract from the landscape.165 5.2.5 Natural character [260] In this section we address the natural character of the streams crossed by the NOR because the preservation of the natural character of rivers (or streams in this case) and their margins; and the protection of them from inappropriate use and development; is a relevant RMA s6(a) matter that the territorial authorities must recognise and provide for.166

[261] In saying that we note that the Project will require a suite of regional resource consents under Part II of the One Plan including vegetation clearance and land disturbance;167 discharges of stormwater and sediment;168 water takes and stream diversions;169 and work within the beds of rivers, streams and artificial watercourses.170 As site specific aspects of natural character (together with effects on riparian margins and aquatic ecosystems) will be assessed under some or all of those regional council consenting processes, and given that we are dealing with a NOR corridor rather than a final and precise roading alignment, we have focused our natural character assessment on a ‘whole of stream’ basis.

[262] We summarised the existing natural character of streams and wetlands traversed by the NOR in section 5.1.5 of this Report.

[263] For NZTA the potential adverse effects of the NOR on natural character were primarily addressed in Volume 3 of the AEE171 and the evidence of Dr Adam Forbes, Mr Evans and Kieran Miller. NZTA’s focus was appropriately on areas that they found to possess high or moderate levels of natural character. Importantly, all parties agreed that none of the affected streams have ‘outstanding natural character’.

[264] NZTA assessed the natural character of the affected streams by way of a multi-disciplinary study that considered a range of attributes relating to the active bed and its margin (abiotic and biotic), the stream’s context and experiential aspects. The Project most impacted on the morphology of the active bed and its margins, the aquatic taxa and ecosystem functioning of the active bed, the terrestrial ecology of the

165 Evans, EIC, paragraph 42. 166 We note that wetlands are also a RMA s6(a) matter, but following the approach taken by NZTA and the s42A report authors they are embodied within the assessment of effects on indigenous biodiversity. 167 One Plan Part II – Chapter 13. 168 Ibid, Chapter 14. 169 Ibid, Chapter 16. 170 Ibid, Chapter 17. 171 Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway Project Technical Assessment #4 Landscape, Natural Character and Visual Effects and Appendix 4.A Natural Character Assessment

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

margins, and the experiential qualities. The flow regime, water quality, and absence or presence of exotic flora and fauna were not generally considered to be significantly affected over the long-term.172

[265] At a ‘whole of stream’ level the following changes to the three ‘High Value’ streams we listed in section 5.1.5 of this report were: . a stream in the western QEII area which flows into an area of raupo wetland (chainage 4000 to 6000) changed from a High level of natural character to a Moderate/High level; . a stream in the eastern QEII area (chainage 6100 to 6500) had no change to its High level; and . a stream crossing associated with an existing construction access track from Saddle Road had no change to its High level.173

[266] We addressed the relevant natural character themes of the statutory instruments in section 4.1.5 of this Report. Expanding on those themes, we note that the RPS (One Plan - Part I) addresses natural character. It states174 “The approach of the One Plan is to maintain the current degree of natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, rivers and lakes and their margins and to restore and rehabilitate natural character where appropriate”. RPS Objective 6-2 states adverse effects should be avoided where they would ‘significantly diminish’ the attributes and qualities of areas that have high natural character. The One Plan does not however define what ‘significantly diminish’ means. Nevertheless, on the basis of the NZTA assessment outlined above, we are satisfied that the NOR is not inconsistent with RPS Objective 6-2.

[267] We are also mindful that RPS Policy 6-9 directs that in relation to natural character; use and development must generally be considered appropriate if, amongst other things, it has a functional necessity be located in a river or wetland and no practicable alternative locations exist. Additionally, RPS Objective 5-4 directs that the beds of rivers will be managed in a way that provides for infrastructure. In our view these particular natural character provisions weigh in favour of confirming the NOR, given it has a functional necessity to traverse the Ruahine Ranges and it would be fanciful to contemplate a NOR corridor that avoids all of the streams therein.

[268] The s42A authors, and Mr Hudson175 in particular, addressed the natural character of streams traversed by the NOR. Amongst other things, there was criticism of NZTA’s selection of natural character attributes and qualities (as in the s42A authors’ view they did not align with the list of attributes and characteristics listed in RPS Policy 6-8); the natural character effects assessment process used by the NZTA experts;176 and the absence of any consideration of construction effects. However, we note that s42A author Logan Brown, the Freshwater and Partnerships Manager at the Regional Council, conceded in response to our questions that the RPS Policy 6-8 characteristics and attributes did appear to be contained in varying forms in the assessment undertaken by NZTA experts.177

[269] Interestingly, experts for the Director General of Conservation did not address natural character, with the Director’s aquatic ecological expert, Nicholas Goldwater,178 stating “My evidence doe [sic] not include comments on the assessment of effects on natural character.”

[270] While no other submitter provided any expert evidence on natural character, we note that the QEII Trust’s submission expressed general concern regarding the covenanted stream gully areas. We address that matter in section 5.2.7 of this Report. Forest and Bird’s submission expressed concern about effects on the “natural state of the waterways”, but their non-expert verbal evidence focused solely on indigenous vegetation matters.

172 Evans, EIC, paragraph 30. 173 Evans, EIC Table 4.2 and paragraph 37. 174 Section 6.7 175 Mr Hudson is a Consultant landscape architect. 176 The NZTA experts assessed changes to the median score of a list of ten natural character attributes. 177 Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Gorge Replacement Route Project, Hearing Panel Questions and Responses, Notices of Requirement for Designations under s168 of the RMA 1991 Act, Panel questions to the s 42A reporting team, page 19. 178 EIC, paragraph 3.2.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[271] On reviewing the respective evidence of the NZTA experts and the s42A authors, we are satisfied that NZTA has adequately assessed the potential effects of the NOR on natural character. Many of the criticisms voiced by the s42A authors focus on the precise detail of NZTA’s assessment methodology (which we find to be adequate for the purpose of assessing a NOR corridor) or are otherwise more relevant to the regional consenting process that is yet to come.

[272] We note that Mr Hudson was critical of NZTA’s failure (in his opinion) to address potential cumulative adverse effects on stream natural character and he considered there was the potential for these effects to be significant.179 This was addressed in NZTA’s Reply which confirmed that Mr Evan’s had considered cumulative effects on the relevant streams because he assessed effects on a ‘whole stream’ scale.180

[273] We accept that there will be cumulative adverse effects on stream natural character simply because the NOR traverses a number of streams. However, given our finding above that the adverse effects (on a whole of stream basis) for the highest value streams will not ‘significantly diminish’ those stream’s natural character, we find it unlikely that there would be cumulative adverse effects of a scale that would weigh against confirming the NOR. We acknowledge that matter will necessarily be revisited when regional consents are sought for the new road.

[274] In terms of mitigating adverse effects on natural character, NZTA has proposed that the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework, the Landscape Management Plan and the Ecological Management Plan will all direct the detailed roading design process to minimise any such adverse effects. In addition, NOR Condition 9(e)(i) specifies maximum lengths of streams in the two QEII covenanted areas that can be permanently disturbed by diversion or other physical modification. This must not exceed 350m for the QEII west stream 7A and 460m for the QEII east streams (6A, 6B and 6C). We are satisfied this will mitigate adverse effects to the extent practicable on a ‘whole of stream’ basis, while noting the Addenda evidence181 of Mr Miller for NZTA that “The detailed design phase will almost certainly alter how much waterway length will be affected, where, and in what way and thus the extent of measures necessary to address those effects …”. We understand this will be considered further in the regional consenting phase of the Project. 5.2.5.1 Natural character findings [275] On balance and having weighed the evidence we find that: (a) NZTA’s assessment of effects on natural character was both reasonable and thorough and the natural character attributes assessed by them adequately encompass the attributes and characteristics listed in RPS Policy 6-8; (b) on a whole of stream basis, the NOR will maintain existing natural character to an extent that is reasonable in the circumstances; (c) on a whole of stream basis, the attributes and qualities of areas that have High natural character will not be ‘significantly diminished’; (d) the mitigation proposed by NZTA regarding effects on natural character is appropriate; (e) site specific effects on natural character at stream crossing points, and the effects of construction works on natural character, are best assessed as part of the future regional consenting process that will focus on a final roading alignment; and (f) the NOR is not inconsistent with the requirements of the statutory instruments, as summarised in section 4.1.5 of this Report, noting our understanding that matters of detail relating to the One Plan Schedule B water body values and Schedule E water quality targets will be addressed under the regional consents required for the Project.

179 Section 42A Technical Evidence Addendum: Landscape and Natural Character, John Hudson, 4 April 2019, paragraphs 14 and 16. 180 Ibid, paragraphs 212 to 215. 181 Paragraph 19.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

5.2.6 Historic heritage and archaeology [276] The absence of known archaeological or historic heritage features within the NOR corridor means that there are no adverse effects to address in that regard.

[277] In recognition of the proximity of the new bridge across the Manawatū River to the culturally significant Parahaki Island, section 3.1.1 of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework requires that the bridge’s design should appropriately express the archaeological significance, cultural narrative and shared values of the Manawatū River and Parahaki Island. In addition, NZTA has proposed182 an “Outline Plan – Parahaki Island” requiring consultation with the Te Āpiti Ahu Whenua Trust and with the aim being to minimise, as far as practicable, any impact of the enabling or construction works activities or bridge piers on Parahaki Island. We find those measures to be appropriate.

[278] In relation to possible unrecorded subsurface remains being exposed during the new road’s construction, where an area of the Designation is not subject to an archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, NZTA has proposed183 an accidental discovery protocol which is to be prepared in consultation with the Project Iwi Partners and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. We note that to be a routine and appropriate mitigation measure for major construction projects involving large scale earthworks. 5.2.6.1 Heritage and archaeology findings [279] We find that: (a) potential adverse effects on historic heritage have been suitably avoided by NZTA’s route selection process and conditions will ensure that any effects on unrecorded subsurface remains will be appropriately mitigated; and (b) the NOR is consequently consistent with the requirements of the statutory instruments, as summarised in section 4.1.6 of this Report. 5.2.7 Indigenous biodiversity [280] In this section we address potential adverse effects of the NOR on indigenous terrestrial vegetation and the habitats of indigenous fauna (birds, long-tailed bats, lizards and invertebrates), which we collectively refer to as indigenous biological diversity or indigenous biodiversity.

[281] At the outset we note there was tension regarding the role of this NOR process to deal with indigenous biodiversity given that the Project will require a suite of regional resource consents including for indigenous vegetation removal. 184 The tension arose because in this region the RPS (One Plan - Part I), in responding to the requirements of RMA s62(1)(i)(iii), has assigned to the Manawatū Whanganui Regional Council the role of setting objectives, policies and rules to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna and to maintain or enhance (where appropriate) indigenous biodiversity. Territorial authorities are not able to set rules in their district plans for that purpose and we note the NOR before us will ultimately form part of the district plans.

[282] For example Mr Jessen, counsel for the territorial authorities, submitted185 that “The Joint Councils are required to recognise and provide for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna as a matter of national importance” but then went on to submit186 that “…the Regional Council must be left with the option to determine that offsetting may or may not be available, or may or may not have delivered net biological gain.” S42A author Phillip Percy (planning) made a novel suggestion that187 “In assessing the NOR against the matters in s171, and given that the regional council consenting process is intended to deal with the specific details of biodiversity protection, offsetting conditions on the NOR are not actually necessary” and “The need for indigenous biological

182 Condition PN1. 183 Condition 31. 184 See section 5.2.5 of this Report. 185 Legal Submissions for the Joint Councils (Reporting Officers), 3 April 2019, paragraph 158 186 Ibid, 202. 187 Section 42A Technical Evidence Addendum: Planning, Phil Percy and Anita Copplestone, paragraphs 39 and 47.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

diversity (IBD) conditions on the NOR is in fact doubtful given it is the function of the Regional Council to control those matters through resource consents.”

[283] In response we note that the territorial authorities’ residual indigenous biodiversity functions prescribed by the RPS188 specifically refer to RMA ss6(c) and 7(d) of the RMA Furthermore, the question about whether or not we have jurisdiction to deal with indigenous biodiversity matters or recommend conditions relating to those matters is rendered moot by the fact that NZTA has offered a comprehensive suite of conditions dealing with indigenous biodiversity. That puts the matter squarely on the table before us and accordingly is an issue that we must address. Mr Jessen confirmed that to be correct when we put that to him.

[284] Accordingly, we have assessed the effects of the NOR on indigenous biodiversity and have not left that to the regional resource consents process that will follow. We must make our decision on the evidence before us and our consideration of effects necessarily relates to the NOR corridor and effects arising from NZTA’s ‘indicative roading alignment’. Future decision-makers for the Regional Council will make their decisions based on the evidence before them and the effects of a confirmed roading alignment. There is nothing in the statutory framework that we are aware of that would prevent future Regional Council decision-makers imposing different or more stringent consent conditions (compared to those recommended by us for the NOR) in response to effects on indigenous biodiversity identified at that time.

[285] We summarised the existing indigenous biodiversity in section 5.1.7 of this Report.

[286] For NZTA the potential adverse effects of the NOR are primarily addressed in Volume 3 of the AEE189 and the evidence of Dr Forbes, Mr Blayney and Mr Miller. We note that the NOR corridor encompasses 376ha of land of which only around 40ha190 (or 11%) comprises indigenous terrestrial vegetation. The remainder mainly comprises unremarkable exotic grazed pasture. Adverse effects of any potential significance therefore only arise over a small proportion of the NOR corridor.

[287] NZTA’s biodiversity assessment appropriately in our view focused on three areas that were unable to be avoided by the NOR corridor. These are the Western Slope (chainage 3900 to 4400) which has High and Very High ecological values and two QEII covenanted areas (western at chainage 5600 to 5900 and eastern at chainage 6100 to 6800). Route options on the Western Slope are constrained by the need to avoid the culturally significant Parahaki Island and the ecologically significant Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve.

[288] Using best practice191 methods, the NZTA experts initially identified ten192 distinct indigenous vegetation and habitat ecosystem types based on their composition, structure and condition and assigned them an ecological value ranging from Very High to Low. As we noted in section 5.1.7 of this Report, using the assessment criteria set out in Policy 13-5 of the One Plan, the NZTA experts identified which of these ecosystem types would be considered RMA s6(c) areas of significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Over two thirds (23ha) of the 40ha of indigenous vegetation did not trigger the RMA s6(c) significance criteria.

[289] In terms of indigenous fauna, the AEE noted that while lizards, long-tailed bats and important invertebrates were potentially present in the habitats discussed above, none have been discovered to date. In Reply NZTA noted that a second bat survey had not detected any bats.193 The Manawatū riverbed in the vicinity of the proposed new bridge provides habitat for river birds and the wetlands in the Western Slope provide important wetland bird habitat.

188 RPS Policy 6-1(c). 189 Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway Project Technical Assessment #6 Terrestrial Ecology; Appendix 6.A Te Ahu a Turanga – Manawatū Highway Project Assessment of Terrestrial Vegetation and Habitats; Appendix 6.B Te Ahu a Turanga – Manawatū Highway Project Terrestrial fauna ecological effects assessment technical report. 190 Excluding Low Value exotic dominated seepage wetlands. 191 Methods set by the Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ). 192 Later amended to 12 habitats (or ecosystem types) following input from Dr Martin for the Director General of Conservation. 193 Ibid, paragraph 203.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[290] Potential adverse effects of the NOR include the removal or modification of indigenous vegetation and habitats, habitat fragmentation and isolation, and edge effects on retained vegetation and habitats. In order to address these potential effects, the NZTA experts proposed that higher value ecosystems would be avoided (by route selection) or removal of them would be minimised (by using bridges instead of culverts for example). Effects on the High194 and Very High195 value ecosystems would be limited by ‘effects envelopes’ defining a maximum area of allowable vegetation or habitat removal. Environmental compensation ratios (ECRs), which are numerical multipliers, are then applied to the ‘effects envelope’ areas to determine areas of vegetation replacement or enhancement proposed to mitigate, offset or compensate for the vegetation clearance (Condition 18). Additional offset measures include enhancing existing habitats, undertaking long term pest control, and retiring areas from grazing. All replacement planting would be completed as soon as practicable but no later than three years post-construction.

[291] The ‘effects envelopes ’and the use of ECRs result in much greater areas of restorative planting compared to areas that are removed, ensuring that adverse effects on High or Very High value ecosystems are no more than ‘moderate’ and are non-permanent. Dr Forbes196 described how the ECRs were established and they “… aim to replace lost habitats at rates (multipliers) that reflect the time required to replace lost attributes (time lag) and allow for a component of risk that the replacements might not thrive immediately (risk). Specific ECRs were formulated taking into account ecological scarcity, regional and natural threat status, structural and temporal attributes and overall ecological value. The ECRs were reviewed by my peer reviewer Dr Blaschke197 and have since been further shaped through comments received from stakeholders and submitters”. To inform the ECRs “… the composition, stature and value ecosystem types have been surveyed, the regional and national threat status considered.”

[292] We find Dr Forbes’ assessment to be very conservative and accept his opinion that the ECRs he developed are at the ‘generous’ end of the scale.

[293] For example, Dr Forbes assumed complete loss of the habitats listed in Condition 18 whereas in reality not all those areas will be removed. All replacement plantings are assumed to be into retired but currently grazed exotic grasslands. Exotic dominated wetlands198 have been included in Condition 18 and indigenous wetland ECRs will be confirmed once impact and restoration sites are confirmed. The relevant effects envelope for High Value swamp maire retains all trees and limits the effects of canopy pruning.

[294] The s42A authors were concerned that the indigenous biodiversity NOR conditions offered by NZTA did not meet the requirements of Regional Plan (One Plan – Part II) Policy 13-4. That Policy applies to regional council resource consents, but it is invoked here by RPS Policy 6-2(e)(ii) which applies to the biodiversity functions of territorial authorities as set out in RPS Policy 6-1. It appeared to us that the authors’ primary concerns were whether or not the ‘avoidance’ of adverse effects on the QEII east and west covenanted areas had been pursued with enough vigour,199 whether or not the NZTA conditions comprised ‘offsetting’ or ‘compensation’, and whether the NZTA conditions would result in a ‘net biodiversity gain’. Some of the s42A authors opined that Policy 13-4 did not explicitly refer to ‘compensation’.

[295] Regarding the issue of avoidance, we asked NZTA to provide further information regarding the potential to avoid the QEII east and west covenanted areas. In Reply NZTA advised that their designers had not been able to identify a feasible alignment option that avoided the western and eastern QEII areas,

194 Secondary Broadleaved Forests with old growth signatures, Old-growth tree lands, Advanced secondary broadleaved forests, Raupo- dominated seepage wetlands, and Divaricating Shrublands. 195 Old-growth forests (alluvial), and Old-growth Forests (Hill Country). 196 Addendum to Statement of Evidence of Dr Adam Forbes (Terrestrial Ecology) on Behalf of The New Zealand Transport Agency, 25 March 2019, paragraphs 47 and 49. 197 Dr Paul Blaschke, Blaschke and Rutherford, Wellington. 198 Those areas have not yet been field validated. 199 The s42A authors were of the view that in light of Policy 13-4 NZTA should have tried harder to avoid the rare, vulnerable or irreplaceable habitats in the Western Slope and the two QEII covenanted areas and they noted that in this case there are three such habitats, namely threatened alluvial old-growth forests, a small remnant stand dominated by 14 mature swamp maire trees (classified as Threatened – Nationally Critical) and a rare seepage wetland ecosystem.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

because that would in turn adversely affect a vegetated valley to the north and significantly increase earthworks volumes and cost, given the rising (and then falling) topography in that area.200 We also note NZTA’s submission that the s42A authors did not indicate whether they had canvassed the possibility of an option that avoided the QEII areas with the relevant landowners (Mr Bolton, Mr Moar and Meridian) or with tangata whenua.201

[296] Regarding the issue of ‘compensation’, we find that it is unnecessary for us to dwell on whether particular elements of the NZTA response comprise ‘offsetting’ or ‘compensation’ as from the evidence of Dr Forbes it is clearly a mixture of both. Policy 13-4 of the One Plan does not exclude ‘compensation’ and Mr Jessen confirmed, in response to our questions, that ‘compensation’ is an option that is legally available to NZTA and to us as decision-makers. Counsel for the Director General of Conservation agreed with Mr Jessen on that point.

[297] Regarding the issue of ‘net gain’ we note that NOR Condition 24(c)(i) explicitly requires NZTA “to achieve a net indigenous biological diversity gain with reference to the direction given by Policy 13-4 of the One Plan.” In that regard, having reviewed and weighed the evidence, we are satisfied that the ECRs (Condition 18) in combination with other measures listed in Conditions 24(b) and 24(c) that guide the contents of the Ecological Management Plan (including stock exclusion and fencing, forest canopy gap planting, animal pest management, additional retirement of areas, and funding the indigenous biodiversity efforts of the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group within the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve) will result in a net biodiversity gain of ecological values as required by Policy 13-4(d)(i) of the One Plan.

[298] With regard to the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group needing to undertake offsetting activities above and beyond what they currently do in order for funding for them to contribute to a ‘net gain’ (or to yield ‘additionality’) with certainty, we simply note the evidence of Dr Jon Roygard202 that “… the level of effort that is present is somewhat constrained by the fiscal resources available to the group” and “The Te Āpiti Gorge Governance Group have put together a Biodiversity Management Plan … Like many other aspects of the programme the greatest challenge is funding the level of work desired” and “…the Governance Group believe that the Te Āpiti Manawatu Gorge project area should be a site where offsets and compensation, if required to achieve net gain, are targeted”.

[299] No party appeared to dispute Dr Roygard’s evidence on these matters.

[300] In Reply NZTA advised that reference to the Te Āpiti Governance Group’s Biodiversity Management Plan has since been added to the conditions offered by NZTA, given that potential funding for activities of the Governance Group could be a useful adjunct to the other offsetting measures proposed.203

[301] Importantly, the Ecological Management Plan204 (Condition 24) will need be certified by the territorial authorities as achieving a net biodiversity gain. We find that provides the certainty that the s42A authors and some submitters considered lacking.

[302] The s42A authors were also concerned that NZTA did not have a sufficient interest in land to provide certainty that sites were available for offsetting or compensation and that any plantings could therefore be secured in perpetuity. In response we note that NZTA can either lease appropriate land for that purpose or compulsorily acquire it under the Public Works Act if necessary. As noted by Mr Randal in opening, the Crown clearly has the means and funds to secure any necessary land. We have no reason to conclude that NZTA will not acquire any land it needs to satisfy the Designation conditions.

200 Ibid, paragraph 174. 201 Ibid, paragraph 176. 202 Dr Jon Roygard tabled a statement of evidence on behalf of the Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group. See pages 2, 5 and 7 of 8 of his Statement. 203 Ibid, paragraph 190. 204 The Ecological Management Plan (Condition 24) is part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which in turn forms part of the proposed s176A Outline Plan for construction works (Condition 9).

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[303] Turning now to indigenous fauna, potential adverse effects on birds were proposed to be avoided or mitigated by NZTA through preclearance surveys of the wetland areas and forests during the nesting season, mowing grassy areas to discourage Pipit nesting, and seasonal management protocols for river birds. Any lizards discovered during pre-construction surveys would be salvaged and relocated. The JWS205 from the terrestrial ecologists who conferenced agreed that lizards are not in contention and effects on terrestrial invertebrates can be acceptably managed through an appropriate management plan.

[304] We agree and note that the Ecological Management Plan referred to above appropriately sets out a range of matters, including values identification; objectives; monitoring, management and mitigation measures; effects envelopes; staff training; using eco-sourced materials; plant and animal pest management; and details of any further offsetting or compensation measures necessary to achieve a net indigenous biological diversity gain. NZTA has also appropriately proposed a Bat Management Plan (Condition 21), a Lizard Management Plan (Condition 20), an Avifauna Management Plan (Condition 22) and a Terrestrial Invertebrates Management Plan (Condition 23).

[305] Regarding bats, we note that NZTA has completed two bioacoustics surveys and no bats were identified. Accordingly, we have omitted reference to bioacoustic surveys from the Bat Management Plan (Condition 21), but nevertheless require that Plan to be included in the Ecological Management Plan (Condition 24) as a precautionary approach should any bats be identified as the Project progresses.

[306] With regard to the overall concerns of the s42A authors, counsel for the territorial authorities Mr Jessen helpfully concluded that so long as avoidance had been adequately tested through a careful consideration of alternatives, the conditions containing the indigenous biological diversity effects envelope were appropriate for the purpose of a designation.206 We agree.

[307] Several submitters also addressed indigenous biodiversity issues.

[308] Firstly, despite some lay iwi witnesses called by NZTA verbally expressing a view that “no more trees should be removed”, expert evidence207 for Rangitāne o Manawatū advised that they “… are comfortable with the ecological conditions as they stand, we acknowledge that the full suite of measures will develop over time and that this should be considered when setting bottom limits for this NOR.” In terms of the NZTA biodiversity offsetting regime Rangitāne o Manawatū advised they “…do not seek an exact like for like replacement of species compositions, and we strongly oppose one being implemented.” The views of Rangitāne o Manawatū lend support to the evidence of the NZTA experts and they strongly weigh in favour of confirming the NOR.

[309] Meridian was concerned about the effect of replacement planting on the operation of their wind turbines. In response NZTA proposed amending Conditions 17 and 24 such that replacement planting must not be located within the Te Āpiti wind farm unless it is within the NOR boundary and does not exceed a mature height of 1.5m, unless Meridian approves otherwise. Replacement planting within the QEII open space covenants would be allowed, but Meridian would be consulted on the species used.

[310] The NOR does not traverse any DOC estate. No DOC officials presented evidence at the hearing. However, independent experts208 for the Director General of Conservation were highly critical of NZTA’s indigenous biodiversity effects assessment methodology and the resulting NZTA conditions package. Oddly, the Director General’s experts unhelpfully declined to partake in March 2019 expert witness conferencing.

[311] The Director General’s experts’ criticism was responded to by Dr Forbes. Having reviewed the evidence we remain of the view that NZTA’s indigenous biodiversity effects assessment methodology and the resulting conditions package is fit for purpose. We note that early discussions between Dr Forbes and

205 Joint Statement of Ecology Experts (Terrestrial Ecology), 18 March 2019, page 6. 206 Ibid, paragraph 200. 207 Siobhan Lynch-Karaitiana, EIC, paragraph 8. 208 Dr Timothy Martin, Dr Kelvin Lloyd, and Nicholas Goldwater, all consultant ecologists with the company called Wildland Consultants Ltd.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Dr Timothy Martin resulted in some upwards revisions of the ECRs and the inclusion of two additional habitat areas. Regarding any remaining areas of technical disagreement, we generally prefer the evidence of Dr Forbes, Mr Blayney and Mr Miller to that of Dr Martin, Mr Lloyd and Mr Goldwater. We note that upon being questioned by us, despite their extensive experience in such matters, the Director General’s experts were unable to tell us whether the ECRs might have been bigger or smaller had they been engaged to do the work undertaken by Dr Forbes and his colleagues.

[312] Nevertheless, in an Addendum to his Evidence in Chief, Dr Martin suggested a further series of amendments to the NZTA biodiversity conditions, although he had not consulted with Dr Forbes about them. S42A author James Lambie supported each of those suggested amendments. In Reply NZTA noted that, as requested by the Panel, Dr Forbes (with the input of Mr Blayney as appropriate) had considered each of the points raised by Dr Martin. The Reply submissions advised whether or not NZTA accepted Dr Martin’s suggestions and noted several consequential amendments to the NZTA condition suite.209 We have had regard to the various expert views on Dr Martin’s suggestions when finalising the recommended conditions.

[313] Mr Briggs gave planning evidence for the Director-General. Importantly in our view, when we asked him about his independent opinion on the overall balance of the competing considerations for the NOR, he advised that the adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity of concern to the Director General’s ecological experts did not outweigh the positive social and economic benefits of the new road. We agree and reject the relief sought by the Director General that the NOR be withdrawn.

[314] Bill Wallace, a lay representative210 of the QEII Trust, sought a NOR alignment that avoided the QEII east and west covenanted areas. We discussed that matter above in response to the same issue raised by s42A author Mr Lambie. Mr Wallace was also concerned that the new road would sever connectivity between the four eastern covenanted blocks avoided by the NOR and the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve. We are not persuaded by the evidence of Mr Wallace on that matter as two211 of those blocks appear to be contiguous to the Scenic Reserve and the other two212 are already separated from it by a Meridian access track and at least 200m of grazed pasture.

[315] Regarding the QEII covenanted areas, we note from NZTA’s Reply that QEII covenants will remain in place over the land that is outside the Project’s final construction footprint (and therefore not acquired by NZTA) and that both the fee simple owner of the land (Mr Bolton) and QEII Trust would be eligible for compensation in accordance with Part 5 of the PWA. The QEII Trust’s entitlement to compensation can be addressed by either making other lands subject to a QEII covenant or, if that is not achievable, by payment of compensation determined in accordance with PWA compensation principles.213

[316] From the evidence overall, we are satisfied that the NZTA indigenous biodiversity assessment methodology appropriately responds to the provisions in the statutory instruments, particularly the One Plan provisions that we outlined in section 4.1.7 of this Report, and relevant submitter concerns. We find the proposed ‘effects envelope’ approach and the accompanying additional offsetting or compensation measures proposed to be an appropriate and suitably conservative means of responding to potential adverse effects of the NOR on indigenous biodiversity.

[317] We note that in the suite of conditions recommended to us controls on planting (be it for landscape, visual amenity, offsetting or compensation purposes) were spread over several conditions relating to the Landscape Management Plan and the Ecological Management Plan recommended by both NZTA and the s42A authors and a ‘Offset Planting and Management Plan’ recommended solely by the s42a authors. We have consolidated and rationalised those planting controls in a requirement for a ‘Planting Management Plan’ (Condition 19).

209 Ibid, paragraph 202. 210 Bill Wallace is the QEII Trust Tararua regional representative. 211 5-07-591 Blocks A and C. 212 5-07-164 and Block B. 213 Ibid, paragraphs 250 and 256.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

5.2.7.1 Indigenous biodiversity findings [318] On balance and having weighed the evidence we find that: (a) having particular regard to potentially competing RPS (One Plan - Part I) Chapter 3 and 6 provisions that seek to respectively provide for the establishment of regionally and nationally important infrastructure and also preserve and protect high value indigenous biodiversity habitats, the relevant habitats have been preserved and protected as far as is reasonable in this case; (b) having particular regard to Policies 3-3, 6-1, 6-2 and 13-4 of the One Plan and the specific circumstances of this regionally and nationally significant infrastructure Project, requiring total avoidance of the small areas of High Value indigenous habitat that may be rare, vulnerable or irreplaceable (up to 1.15ha of old-growth forests and 1.25ha of affected indigenous seepage wetlands)214 would be disproportionally onerous and offsetting (or compensating for) adverse effects on those habitats is appropriate; (c) NZTA’s proposed biodiversity package including legally-protected like-for-like replacement plantings, plus retirement, protection and gap planting of degraded ecosystems215 and ongoing animal pest control to densities where the forest ecosystems can thrive, is appropriate and achievable;216 (d) NZTA’s proposed biodiversity package utilises generously conservative environmental compensation ratios (ECRs) and proposes additional offsetting or compensation measures such that any residual adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity will be more than adequately accounted for resulting in a net biodiversity gain; (e) notwithstanding our finding under (d), should there prove to be a shortfall in ‘offsetting’ or ‘compensation’ (in terms of net gain) then that shortfall can be accommodated by NZTA’s proposal to fund the indigenous biodiversity efforts of the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group within the highly valued Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve;217 (f) the two affected QEII east and west covenanted areas are long and relatively narrow and run north- south whereas the Project route runs east-west. Moving the construction footprint within the NOR either north towards Saddle Road or south towards the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve would still result in covenanted land being crossed and so avoiding those areas is not practicable; (g) construction effects are more appropriately dealt with under the future vegetation clearance and earthworks regional consents required by the Project under the Regional Plan (One Plan – Part II); (h) the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework will adequately guide specific design matters at key locations, including using a bridge and retaining walls at the stream crossing at chainage 5800 and the use of retaining walls at stream crossings between chainage 6400-8600;218 (i) the concerns of Meridian regarding replacement plantings within the Te Āpiti wind farm have been adequately addressed by NZTA; and (j) the requirements of the statutory instruments, as summarised in section 4.1.7 of this Report, are suitably satisfied. 5.2.8 Tangata whenua values and interests [319] Cultural effects were addressed for NZTA in Volume 3 of the AEE219 through the Cultural Value Statements provided by Rangitane, Ngati Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tamaki Nui-a-Rua and Ngati Raukawa. All statements concluded that the Project would result in potential adverse effects on the natural environment and associated cultural values. These statements formed the basis of a collaborative approach to the design of the Project which resulted in changes to the NOR so as not to impact on ‘Te Ahu a Turanga’ and to avoid any physical contact with Parahaki Island.220 It was recognised that

214 Forbes, EIC, paragraph 57. 215 Including the retirement and protection of approximately 32 ha of old-growth forest (which is currently grazed and includes existing swamp maire remnants). Forbes, EIC, paragraph 109. 216 We note seeds for replacement plants are already being collected from the affected habitats. 217 We note that the representative for Forest and Bird considered this to be a useful ‘offset’ activity if the NZTA funding would enable the MGGG to do things that they had no other funding for. 218 Forbes, EIC, paragraph 27. 219 Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway #3B: Technical Assessments. 220 Ibid; Tab 7, Te Ahu a Turanga; paragraphs 47 and 48.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

subsequent revisions would be necessary as the Project progresses and specific impacts are better defined and understood, along with methods to avoid, remedy and mitigate cultural effects.

[320] Iwi witnesses all acknowledged the open and constructive way in which NZTA had engaged with them as the Project had evolved to the NOR stage. However, concerns still remained about the substantial uncertainty across a number of elements of the Project including landscape, terrestrial ecology, water quality, historic and archaeological values; and significantly, tangata whenua values.221 The separation of the NOR proceedings from the resource consents process generated a level of uncertainty for iwi, as the detailed design and associated effects of the Project, particularly in respect of aquatic ecology, which iwi consider to be significant, will remain unresolved until they can be addressed as part of a subsequent regional resource consents process.222

[321] NZTA has proposed that adverse effects on cultural values will mitigated primarily through the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework. This framework is intended to guide development over the roading corridor and identify key elements in respect of landscape and cultural matters to minimise any such adverse effects.223 The provision for tangata whenua values in the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework was recognised by iwi as the primary means of establishing pathways for addressing and reducing any adverse cultural effects. However, the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework is only in a preliminary stage of development and does not currently reflect the cultural values of all Iwi Partners. Iwi voiced concern over how the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework, as a living document, will operate over the next stages of the Project.

[322] Iwi representatives all expressed confidence in the NZTA’s partnership approach as an effective way of addressing uncertainty beyond the NOR process. NZTA acknowledged during the hearing how crucial the iwi partnerships are to the success of the Project,224 and that iwi are best placed to speak for themselves in confirming whether their rights and interests are being adequately provided for in this process. The importance of this partnership approach was borne out during the hearing by the unanimous agreement of Iwi to come under the umbrella of the NZTA’s case225 as opposed to being submitters in their own right.

[323] Iwi witnesses consistently adopted a position of support for the Project concept. The reasons for this were summed up by Gregory Carlyon (on behalf of Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Raukawa) in terms of the substantial economic, social and safety concerns caused by the closure of the Gorge Road; and a strong understanding from iwi that there is a path forward that allows for resolution of the significant number of outstanding matters generated by the Project. 226 Project benefits were also recognised by iwi in terms of the unique opportunities to promote and enhance cultural values and historical narratives with the wider community.227

[324] Therefore, it was clear from the evidence of iwi witnesses that they accepted the need for the Project and supported the confirmation of NOR. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the adverse cultural effects arising from the Project can be appropriately mitigated through agreed processes with NZTA as reflected in the conditions. We agree that the ongoing involvement and guidance of iwi will be necessary to enable the detailed design, resource consenting, and construction processes to properly reflect tangata whenua values.228 In addition, we are satisfied that the following proposed conditions will provide for the ongoing kaitiaki role of the Iwi Partners, through:229

221 Carlyon, EIC, paragraph 20 222 Carlyon, EIC, paragraph 31. 223 Mr Bentley, EIC, page 5. 224 NZTA Reply; 17 April 2019; paragraph 153. 225 ibid, paragraph 31. 226 Carlyon, EIC, paragraph 31. 227 Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway #3B: Tab 7; para 52. 228 NZTA Reply; 17 April 2019; paragraph 154. 229 Ibid; paragraph 155.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

(a) The implementation of a ‘finalised’ version of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework that retains flexibility to allow for further information from iwi to be incorporated at a later stage (Conditions 16(d) and (e)). (b) A Tangata whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan (or plans) that includes “consideration of potential effects on taonga species, or other species of significance to tangata whenua”, in response to evidence presented by iwi, in particular James Kendrick and Siobahn Lynch-Karaitiana (Condition 30). (c) A range of other conditions to include iwi input into finalising the accidental discovery protocol (Condition 31); input into the preparation of the various landscape and ecological management plans230; and specific provision for consultation with the Te Āpiti Whenua Trust (Trustees of Parahaki Island) in respect of works related to the bridging of the Manawatū River.231

[325] In relation to the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework, we also note NZTA’s intention to resolve differing iwi views regarding the implementation of tangata whenua principles by reference to ‘tikanga maori’ principles and practices, as opposed to including provision for a dispute resolution process within the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework.232 We agree with this approach as matters in dispute between iwi are, in our view, more appropriately determined by iwi themselves, in accordance with tikanga Maori. 5.2.8.1 Tangata whenua values and interests findings [326] We find that: (a) Based on NZTA’s Iwi partnership approach (and the high degree of alignment between NZTA and iwi, as shown by iwi presenting evidence as part of NZTA’s case) and the conditions, that “iwi will remain appropriately central to the implementation of the Project”233 and as such that any adverse cultural effects arising from the Project can be appropriately avoided or mitigated; and (b) That is consistent with the relevant statutory provisions summarised in section 4.1.8 of this Report. 5.2.9 Network utilities and affected properties 5.2.9.1 Network utility operators [327] The NOR impacts on network utilities owned by KiwiRail, Transpower and Powerco. As a result of negotiations undertaken between NZTA and these network utility operators, and subject to a number of agreed conditions, there are no outstanding effects-based issues that require our assessment. This was confirmed by the s42A authors.234

[328] However, on the last day the hearing Transpower submitted235 a ‘hearing statement’ noting “… the move away from using outline plan conditions to provide both short term and long-term protection of nationally significant infrastructure, and AgResearch station facilities, towards the more orthodox approach of including construction management plan conditions to address these effects”. Transpower sought the inclusion of a National Grid Construction Management Plan and proposed extensive wording for a condition.

[329] In Reply236 NZTA advised that it is prepared to accept a Management Plan along the lines of that sought by Transpower (to replace the previously proposed Condition T1) and NZTA would consult with Transpower in developing the Management Plan. Accordingly, we have recommended a condition requiring a ‘National Grid Management Plan’ (Condition T2).

230 Conditions 17, 19 to 24 and PN3. 231 Condition PN1. 232 NZTA Reply; 17 April 2019; paragraphs 162 and 163. 233 Ibid; paragraph 157. 234 Section 42A Technical Evidence: Planning, paragraphs 604 to 611. 235 Hearing Statement by Transpower New Zealand Limited - Te Ahu A Turanga; Manwatū Tararua Highway Project, Andy Eccleshall, Environmental Planner, 5 April 2019. 236 Ibid, paragraph 259.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

5.2.9.2 Meridian Te Āpiti wind farm [330] Meridian owns and operates the Te Āpiti wind farm which was consented in 2003 and is located on 1,150ha of farmland in the vicinity of Saddle Road. The NOR traverses the wind farm and Meridian was understandably concerned about the new road’s potential impact on the wind farm’s continued operation, maintenance and future upgrading.237 We noted the NPSREG’s and the RPS’s strong policy support for the wind farm in section 4.1.9 of this Report.

[331] The NOR’s impact on the wind farm includes the removal of at least one turbine and the segregation of 16 turbines south of the NOR from the remaining turbines to the north. The electrical feeders to 25 turbines will require modification and the access roads to 31 turbines will be impacted in some manner.238

[332] We have already discussed the amended conditions proposed by NZTA regarding replacement and visual amenity planting able to be undertaken within the wind farm in sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.7 of this Report. Those conditions239 aim to avoid a reduction in wind speeds and resultant adverse effects on the wind farm’s generation capacity by limiting the type and height of planting associated with the new road. We also discussed the issue of oversized and over dimension vehicle access to the wind farm in section 5.2.1.4 of this Report, noting our finding that it should be provided from both sides of the new road.

[333] Importantly, NZTA has volunteered a condition (now Condition 9(e)(v)) that except where Meridian provides written consent, the Project must not result in the removal of more than two turbines from the Te Āpiti wind farm.

[334] As we noted above, Meridian is concerned about the effect of the new road on any future upgrading of the wind farm. Meridian’s consent allows them to relocate existing turbines within 100m of their current locations. Meridian therefore sought a buffer of 60m from the 100m radius of each turbine (essentially a 160m buffer from each existing turbine location) within which NZTA would have to demonstrate that the Project’s earthworks would not adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of a turbine.240 This particular aspect was a substantial matter of contention.

[335] At the hearing, in addition to legal submissions, Meridian presented comprehensive engineering241 and planning242 evidence which we found to be both objective and helpful.

[336] In Reply counsel for NZTA listed a number of conditions designed to address Meridian’s concerns. In addition to the matters discussed above (planting, oversized and over dimension vehicle access, and a limit on turbine removal) those conditions required: . the outline plan (construction works) to include a Wind Farm Management Plan (Condition 9(c)(ix)); . maintaining permanent practical on-going access to existing and relocated network utilities and wind farm turbines (Condition 9(e)(vi)); . the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan to include procedures, developed in consultation with Meridian, to remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects in instances where construction vibration criteria243 might not be complied with in respect of Meridian’s wind turbines (Condition 28(d)(ii)(K); and . the Construction Traffic Management Plan to detail measures to provide on-going vehicle access to the private property (including the wind farm), and limit the adverse effects of construction and severance, including by forming any new permanent accesses at the earliest opportunity (Condition 29(b)(xi))

237 Opening legal Submissions on behalf of Meridian Energy Limited, H Tapper, 25 March 2019, paragraphs 2 and 4. 238 Ibid, paragraph 10. 239 Condition 17(b)(v). 240 Ibid, paragraphs 50 to 54. 241 Paul Botha, Christopher Jones and Tony Keyte. 242 Lindsay Daysh. 243 Now contained in Condition 27.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[337] We find all of those conditions to be appropriate and have accordingly recommended them ourselves.

[338] We have also recommended Condition T1 (largely as offered by NZTA in Reply) which requires the preparation of a Te Āpiti Wind Farm Management Plan in consultation with Meridian. Counsel for NZTA advised that expert planning witnesses for both NZTA and Meridian had agreed the wording of Condition T1 as it appeared in the Reply version of conditions. We asked Mr Randal if that included agreement on Condition T1(c)(vi) which addressed the 160m buffer zone issue we outlined above. Mr Randel advised that it did.

[339] Meridian’s opening submissions advised that with appropriate measures and protocols any adverse effects on the wind farm could be effectively mitigated, avoided or remedied. Meridian therefore sought that the conditions drafted by its planning expert Mr Daysh be included in the NOR or otherwise the applications be declined.244 Our understanding is that Mr Daysh’s conditions are all contained within the conditions we now recommend. In that regard, Meridian’s comments on the preliminary conditions suggested some minor amendments245 and stated that they otherwise supported the conditions as drafted. On that basis we find that potential adverse effects on the Te Āpiti wind farm have been appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated and that weighs in favour of confirming the NOR. 5.2.9.3 Ballantrae Research Station [340] A number of submitters were concerned about the effects of the NOR on the Ballantrae Hill Country Research Station (“Ballantrae”) and in particular the part of Ballantrae that is currently used for long-term fertiliser and grazing research. We understand that Ballantrae is owned by AgResearch Ltd but is leased to Tairāwhiti (a campus of the Eastern Institute of Technology).

[341] The fertiliser grazing trial was established in 1975 and initially field measurements of soil parameters246 and pasture growth were carried out between 1975 and 1988 and then again in 2015 and 2016. Animal production has been monitored continuously since 1975. Ballantrae now comprises four farmlets, down from the thirteen originally established in 1975. Each of the four farmlets receives a tailored high or low fertiliser regime and has a mix of slopes and aspects.

[342] It is clear to us from the submitter’s evidence that throughout its RMA s171(b) assessment of alternative routes NZTA underestimated, or failed to fully appreciate, the nationally significant status of Ballantrae and its importance to the New Zealand sheep and beef hill country farming industry. NZTA consider that a lack of engagement by AgResearch contributed to this situation.247 Nevertheless, we agree with the evidence of Ron Pellow, the AgResearch National Manager for Farms, that Ballantrae should not have been treated as simply another farming operation.248

[343] Having said that, we acknowledge from NZTA’s submissions in Reply that effects on Ballantrae did feature in NZTA’s s171(1)(b) consideration of alternatives, the Longlist and Shortlist MCA Reports, and the Detailed Business Case.249 On that basis our finding in the preceding paragraph does not lead us to conclude that NZTA’s consideration of alternative routes was inadequate in overall terms.

[344] NZTA’s late appreciation of the importance of Ballantrae is evident from the fact that they did not engage Associate Professor David Horne and Jeffrey Morton to address effects on Ballantrae until early 2019. Mr Morton accepted that that Ballantrae is a nationally significant research site, as did Ms McLeod, NZTA’s planning expert.

244 Ibid, paragraph 108. 245 Primarily the omission of property #8 from Conditions T1(a), 17(b)(v) and 18(d) relating to the Te Āpiti wind farm. 246 Soil fertility; soil carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and sulphur content; heavy metals (Cadmium, Fluorine, Mercury, Uranium) biology, soil physical and nutrient losses. From “Further information requested by the Commissioners following AgResearch hearing 3rd April 2019” by Alec Mackay. 247 Reply on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, April 2019, paragraphs 46 and 47. 248 EIC Ron Pellow, paragraph 20. 249 Ibid, paragraphs 110 to 133.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[345] This puts us in the difficult position of having to weigh the benefits of a new nationally significant road against the resultant adverse effects on an existing nationally significant research farm. Although this is a finely balanced matter, we find that the significant social and economic benefits of the new road are such that it should be enabled to proceed.

[346] In making that finding we acknowledge the points raised by NZTA in Reply that research activities at Ballantrae have reduced, or at least fundamentally changed, since 1988; at some point in the 1980s the trial site was reduced in size by 70% and it is now under a third of its original size; AgResearch came close to selling the site in recent years and the current and future leasing arrangements over the site are uncertain; and the environment of the site has been subject to change, in particular in respect of the nature and use of Saddle Road.250

[347] We therefore turn our minds to avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on Ballantrae.

[348] Ballantrae is not designated in TDC’s District Plan and nor does it have any special zoning support, merely being zoned ‘Rural’ along with the rest of Tararua’s hill country farmland. AgResearch say they did not foresee the need to seek planning protection as there had never previously been a threat to the integrity of the site.

[349] Accordingly, we looked to the RPS for policy guidance.

[350] RPS Policy 3-1 (One Plan - Part I) defines regionally significant infrastructure and physical resources of regional or national importance. Ballantrae does not fit within the types of facilities listed in Policy 3-1. Nevertheless, we find that Policy 3-2 of the RPS is relevant because on the evidence Ballantrae is clearly a physical resource of regional and national importance. Policy 3-2 requires that effects from other activities on such facilities are avoided as far as reasonably practicable.

[351] Accordingly, the approach we have taken is to firstly seek to avoid the effects of the NOR on Ballantrae as far as is reasonably practicable. We have however confined our assessment to measures within the boundary of the NOR as we understand that recommending a new alignment that totally avoids Ballantrae (such as the southern route suggested by submitter Cory Matthew) to be beyond our scope because that would require extensive modifications to the NOR boundary such that the essential nature and character of the NOR would be inappropriately changed. For example, a southern route that avoided Ballantrae would require millions of cubic metres of additional cut or fill (depending on the precise alignment chosen), the removal of additional Te Āpiti wind farm turbines (contrary to the NPSREG), the removal of large areas of regenerating broadleaf forest, the infilling of waterbodies highly valued by iwi, and the culverting of 680m of metres of stream or alternatively a 450m long bridge.251

[352] As mentioned above, Ballantrae includes four research farmlets. We understand from the evidence of Alec Mackay and Cory Matthew that the most important farmlet for ongoing long-term research is the “Big Hill HFHF” farmlet at the southern end of the trial site. We find that the new road’s construction footprint (including a 10m buffer zone) should avoid this farmlet and understand that it is reasonably practicable to do so.

[353] Ballantrae has 72 ‘frame sites’ where soil and pasture measurements are taken. We also find that the new road’s construction footprint should be minimised within the other three research farmlets so as to avoid ‘frame sites’ as far as is reasonably practicable. In this regard, upon evaluating northern and southern road alignment options within the NOR boundary, Mr Whaley for NZTA advised that the current indicative alignment (including a 10m buffer zone) affected 4.5ha of the trial site and 15 frame sites. A northern option affected 5.0ha of land and 17 frame sites whereas a southern option affected 4.7ha of land and 9 frame sites.252

250 Ibid, paragraph 79. 251 EIC, Andrew Whaley, paragraphs 163 to 169. 252 Second Addendum to Statement of Evidence of Andrew Mark Whaley (Project Design) on Behalf of The New Zealand Transport Agency, 2 April 2019.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[354] We have however drafted the conditions such that NZTA does not need to comply with the above requirements should AgResearch agree to that in writing. This enables alternative, mutually agreeable mitigation to be implemented. We do not consider this to be a ‘third party’ approval that would nullify the primary intent of the conditions.

[355] We find that the placement of spoil sites and large-scale erosion and sediment control measures (such as ponds) within Ballantrae should be avoided.

[356] Mr Morton and Professor Horne devised a package of measures to address potential adverse effects on Ballantrae, including roading construction constraints253 and funding for an intensive (pre-construction) monitoring programme to measure important soil and pastoral properties to compare with earlier measurements; funding to monitor the effects of road construction on the site for a 3-5 year period after the Project has been constructed; and the setting up of a Trust Fund to provide year-by-year funding for post-doctoral students to carry out research on the Ballantrae trial site. In Reply NZTA confirmed that it offered the mitigation suggested by Mr Morton. NZTA also proposed to minimise the physical impact of the Project on the trial site and its key parameters by establishing a maximum ‘envelope’ of effects such that no more than 4.8ha or 15% of the trial site would be lost.254 NZTA would then consult with AgResearch to finalise the construction footprint across the trial site255 and reinstate lost frame sites in alternative locations to the extent reasonably practicable.256

[357] We have reflected on the NZTA ‘mitigation package’ when considering the nature of conditions required to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of the new road on Ballantrae. We do not recommend a condition requiring the loss of no more than 15% of the trial site, because if the ‘Big Hill HFHF’ farmlet is to be avoided we do not know how much of the balance of the trial site will then be lost. It may be more than 15% or it may be less.

[358] In his evidence to the hearing Ron Pallow advised us that should the long-term trail at Ballantrae effectively cease to be useful at a farm systems level due to the effects of the new road, then AgResearch would wish to consult with its sheep and beef farm ‘customers’ to determine the appropriate nature of any replacement long-term research site required to address current pressing issues, such as nutrient loss and heavy metal soil contamination from fertiliser, and emerging issues such as the effects of climate change on pasture production.257 AgResearch would then discuss the establishment of a new site with NZTA. We find that to be a reasonably practicable response to the possible cessation of the existing long-term trial at Ballantrae which many of the AgResearch and industry witnesses were convinced would occur should the new road proceed. We find that NZTA should undertake that ‘consultation’ (or have AgResearch do it on their behalf) as the need for it is a direct effect of the new road proceeding. We find that to be more appropriate than establishing a Trust Fund for post-doctoral research at a site that may or may not be of ongoing value to AgResearch.

[359] We put this to counsel for NZTA during the Reply hearing and he indicated that he understood the rationale behind our suggested approach.

[360] We do not go so far as to recommend that NZTA fund a replacement research station in the event of the long-term fertiliser trial at Ballantrae ceasing to be viable due to the effects of the new road. We consider that would more properly be part of any PWA compensation discussion between AgResearch and NZTA. In that regard NZTA in Reply advised that full compensation will be payable to AgResearch under the PWA scheme for the loss of part of the trial site, as well as any relevant business interruption impacts.258

253 Relating to stock movements, noise, dust, stock water quality, spoil disposal, site security and staff health and safety. Many of these matters would already be controlled by Designation conditions. 254 Ibid, paragraph 44. 255 Ibid, paragraph 53. 256 Ibid, paragraph 60. 257 We note that Greg Sneath for the Fertiliser Association of New Zealand advised that FANZ was “not beholden” to Ballantrae for climate change research. 258 Ibid, paragraph 64.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[361] We find all of the above avoidance and mitigation measures should be required by conditions with the detail of their delivery to be set out in a management plan that would be included in a s176A outline plan. We do not consider that the management plan needs to be ‘certified’ by the territorial authorities as the s42A authors did not submit any expert evidence on the matters relating to Ballantrae. 5.2.9.4 Joseph Graham Bolton [362] Mr Bolton owns the farm on the central Ruahine Range plateau through which much of the new road will pass. Mr Bolton submitted in opposition to that proposed route. At the hearing he advised that while he would lose 103ha of his farm to the new road he thought that he could purchase a small farm elsewhere for stock wintering with NZTA ‘compensation’. In Reply259 NZTA acknowledged the Project’s adverse effects on Mr Bolton's farm and advised that NZTA was committed to continue to work through the PWA compensation matters in the usual way to ensure a fair outcome for Mr Bolton.

[363] We find that adverse effects on Mr Bolton’s farm cannot be avoided if the Project is to proceed and agree that the PWA process is best suited to addressing his concerns. 5.2.9.5 Nicholas Shoebridge and Barbara Cooke, Nick Rogers and Tiffany Wendland [364] These submitters reside outside but adjacent to the NOR corridor, near the proposed roundabouts at the western (Rogers and Wendland – 1213 Fitzherbert East Road) and eastern (Shoebridge and Cooke – 49846 SH3) ends of the route. They were primarily concerned with noise effects associated with traffic using the roundabouts, especially that arising from heavy vehicle engine braking. We heard from these submitters at the hearing where they expanded on their concerns.

[365] We addressed the noise effects on these submitters in section 5.2.2 of this Report. We address one additional matter as follows.

[366] In Reply NZTA advised that they were happy to commit to constructing noise bunds around these properties as soon as practicable, and not more than one year following the commencement of construction subject to designs being agreed and access to the properties being allowed. We find that to be commendable but consider that the noise bunds should be designed and constructed prior to NZTA undertaking enabling or construction works activities in the vicinity of these properties. The simple reason being that even enabling works can be disruptive, as was explained to us by Mr Shoebridge at the hearing.

[367] We have recommended Condition 40 ‘Noise bunds’ accordingly. 5.2.9.6 John and Wendy Napier [368] These submitters live at 75 Hope Road in the vicinity of the lower eastern slope. The Napier’s did not appear at the hearing but from their written submission it is clear that they are primarily concerned about road noise and visual amenity.

[369] We addressed adverse noise effects on these submitters in section 5.2.2 of this Report. We address one additional matter as follows. The Napier’s proposed four specific mitigation measures including planting on their boundary. While not essential to mitigate traffic noise effects, Dr Chiles260 (NZTA’s noise expert) considered that planting trees on the property boundary could provide additional mitigation. That is now required by Condition 17(b)(iii)(D) relating to the Landscape Management Plan. We are satisfied that this adequately addresses the submitter’s concern. 5.2.9.7 Murray Ramage [370] Mr Ramage owns, as trustee, a bare land property on Hope Road, immediately next to the NOR at the Woodville end. He was concerned about traffic noise from the new road and its visual impact. Mr Ramage did not appear at the hearing.

259 Paragraphs 242 and 243. 260 Chiles, EIC, paragraphs 45 to 47.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[371] Dr Chiles advised that he had only assessed noise effects on existing dwellings and that in a rural setting it would be impractical to assess effects on future houses that could be built in any location. We accept that as being reasonable. Nevertheless, Dr Chiles261 noted that even if he had assessed a future house in this area it would not have altered his findings, as the noise exposure and effects were already addressed through consideration of the Napier property at 75 Hope Road. In that regard he recommended that the new road should have an asphaltic road surface on the lower eastern slope which should reduce sound levels as far as practicable well within the 57 dB LAeq(24h) criterion from NZS 6806. That recommendation is now embodied in Condition 41(a)(iii).

[372] We have accepted Dr Chiles’ evidence on this matter and find that as a result potential adverse effects on the Ramage property are suitably mitigated. 5.3.9.8 Network utility and affected properties findings [373] In overall terms we find that the potential adverse effects of the NOR on network utilities and affected properties can be suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated by the measures we have outlined above. In making that finding we acknowledge that some adverse effects will necessarily be dealt with through PWA negotiations and compensation. We are satisfied that in each case the outcome will be consistent with the relevant statutory provisions that we summarised in section 4.1.9 of this Report. 5.2.10 Natural hazards [374] We discussed existing natural hazards relevant to the NOR in section 5.1.10 of this Report.

[375] It was common ground between NZTA and the s42A authors that dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, liquefaction, flooding and landslides were all matters that can and should be addressed as part of the detailed design of the final road alignment and the obtaining of any necessary regional consents.262 That process will be informed by recognised standards such as those included in NZTA’s ‘Preliminary Design Philosophy Report’ and ‘Bridge and Retailing Wall Design Philosophy Report’.

[376] The s42A authors stated that the Project provides a solution that is substantially more resilient to seismicity, flooding and other significant weather-event-related natural hazards.263 On the evidence available to us we agree and find that satisfies the relevant requirements of the statutory instruments as summarised in section 4.1.10 of this Report. 5.2.11 Stormwater, erosion and sediment control [377] With the exception of effects on natural character, effects on freshwater values and waterbodies will be managed under the regional consents required by the Project.

[378] However, based on the evidence, including that of s42A author erosion and sediment control expert Gregor McLean, we have no reason to doubt that a suitable Erosion and Sediment Control Plan can be prepared by the alliance contractor and be included as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan and future applications for regional consents. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will control erosion across the construction site, manage any sediment-laden stormwater runoff and prevent unacceptable discharges of sediment into the receiving environment.264

[379] Importantly, we note Mr McLean’s conclusion265 that “so long as there is adequate detail adhering to best practice guidelines/standards within the ESCP and Site Specific ESCP’s, and all construction works, including enabling works, are addressed, implemented and managed through management plans, I am of the opinion that the effects of construction, specifically sediment and dust, can be appropriately managed.”

261 Chiles, EIC, paragraphs 48 to 50. 262 S42A Technical Evidence: Planning, paragraph 692. 263 Ibid, paragraph 690. 264 S42A Technical Evidence: Planning, paragraph 694. 265 Mclean, EIC, paragraph 47.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[380] The s42A authors nevertheless remained concerned about potential effects of ‘enabling works which NZTA suggest be defined in the NOR as “preliminary activities, including such things as pre-construction site investigations (including access for such investigations); site establishment activities; site and property access formation; ecological surveys and any necessary relocations; any necessary reconfiguration of the Te Āpiti wind farm and other utilities infrastructure; vegetation removal and vegetation protection; and the establishment of erosion and sediment control measures.”

[381] In response to the s42A authors’ concerns we simply note that any enabling works impacting on stream beds or involving vegetation clearance or earthworks will either be permitted activities under the regional or district plans, require regional resource consents, or if undertaken within the NOR corridor will necessitate an outline plan to be submitted to the relevant territorial authority in accordance with s176A of the RMA. That outline plan will necessarily address the avoidance, remediation or mitigation of any adverse effects on the environment. Either way, the effects of those activities can be avoided, remedied or mitigated at that time. This satisfies the relevant requirements of the statutory instruments as summarised in section 4.1.11 of this Report.

[382] In coming to that conclusion, we note that while erosion and sediment control measures will ensure that those matters are ‘managed on site’, that does not mean that any measures must be confined within the footprint of the NOR. We differ from the view of the s42A authors in that regard and note NZTA’s view that erosion and sediment control measures can be (and often are) located outside a designation boundary.

[383] NZTA has proposed NOR Condition 8 which specifies that an outline plan must be prepared for enabling works that are not permitted activities under the district plans. We find that to be appropriate. However, we are not persuaded, as was suggested by Mr McLean, that “an overarching ESCP be provided as part of the NOR process”. In light of the above discussion we find that doing so would be of limited utility. 5.2.12.1 Stormwater, erosion and sediment runoff findings [384] We find that the requirement to prepare a suitable Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will result in any adverse effects arising from stormwater, erosion and sediment runoff being suitably managed. 5.3 Consideration of Alternatives (section 171(1)(b)) [385] Within his opening Mr Randal submitted our focus under this subsection must be on the process followed by NZTA in considering alternatives. We agree we are not to consider the merits of the option being put forward because doing so risks redesign of the Project which is not our role.

[386] Parts of the Project are intended to be undertaken in sensitive areas. For example, the northern abutment of the new Manawatū Bridge, those areas that are subject to QEII open-space covenants, and the Te Āpiti wind farm. In our view NZTA has in most instances undertaken a detailed evaluation of options within these sensitive areas. Ballantrae is an exception we have already commented upon.

[387] We also agree with Mr Randal that adequate consideration does not require NZTA to demonstrate that it has considered all possible alternatives or that it has selected the best alternative. We agree the choice of site, route or method of the work remains with NZTA to make. However, in making that choice NZTA was required to consider information obtained regarding alternatives, but again it is not obliged to choose the best option.

[388] The submitters and the s42A authors contended within their evidence and submissions that NZTA had insufficiently considered alternative methods for providing for cyclists within the project. They argued that inadequacy could be cured by imposing a condition requiring a cycle path. As will now be clear the issue of a shared path is no longer in contention because NZTA has offered to provide one. Further discussion in the context of alternatives is not required.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[389] Other than the Te Āpiti wind farm and Ballantrae, the sensitive areas were where indigenous vegetation was present. We thoroughly accept, given the location of the Project being a new road through the Ruahine Range, there will inevitably be effects on indigenous vegetation. As noted elsewhere in this Report we received much evidence from ecologists central to assessing potential route options for the Project. Nevertheless, sensitive areas such as the two QEII covenanted areas have not been able to be avoided. However, we received comprehensive evidence on how adverse ecological effects can be minimised and appropriately offset and/or compensated.

[390] Given the fact that the Project will have significant effects on the environment, particularly in terms of indigenous vegetation, before mitigation and offsetting and that the Project will utilise large areas of private land, then this is a case where careful assessment of alternatives is required.

[391] However, we were well satisfied with the evidence of Mr Whaley for NZTA which detailed the process for developing options for consideration, along with the evidence of Scott Wickman that described the two- stage long list and shortlist process and the multi-criteria analysis process that NZTA had undertaken.

[392] The multi-criteria analysis process allowed for a wide range of route options to be assessed against a set of criteria relevant to NZTA’s objectives and importantly the potential environmental effects of the Project. We note in reviewing that evidence that it was informed both by expert assessment and the views of stakeholders. In particular we observe that the information gathered through the multi-criteria analysis process fed into NZTA’s decision as to the Project route corridor. Subject to that decision, a further process of refining the broad Project corridor down to the route and shape of the Designation corridor as set out in the NORs was followed.

[393] Mr Whaley’s evidence included consideration of the various options for addressing particular issues. We saw both within the evidence and as the hearing took place that this process was iterative and responsive to the advice received from experts and also stakeholders. We agree with NZTA that the benefits of that process were illustrated by reference to the effects envelopes specified in respect of highly sensitive areas from the northern abutment of the new bridge across the Manawatū River to the QEII areas to the northeast.

[394] We note for completeness other areas of particular focus include the eastern rise where a significant length of stream habitat had been avoided.

[395] Insofar as the Te Āpiti windfarm was concerned, given the interactions between Meridian and NZTA that resulted in joint drafting of conditions, we were satisfied that a robust process in relation to adequate consideration of alternatives such as they were available in relation to the wind farm have been assessed.

[396] In relation to Ballantrae, as we have noted earlier, even though Ballantrae did feature in the NZTA consideration of alternatives, the long list and shortlist and MCA reports and within the detailed business case, it is our view based on the evidence received that NZTA did not appropriately recognise and provide for the importance of Ballantrae to primary industry and research within its consideration of alternatives. This deficiency can however be cured by the conditions we recommend.

[397] Overall, we are of the view that NZTA’s consideration of alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work satisfied the requirements of s171(b). 5.4 Reasonably Necessary for Achieving Objectives (section 171(1)(c)) [398] This subsection requires an assessment of whether the enabling and construction works and the Designations are reasonably necessary for achieving NZTA’s objectives for the Project.

[399] We agree with Mr Randal that the framing of objectives is a policy function of the requiring authority. Expressed another way, it is not for an RMA decision-maker to assess the appropriateness or otherwise of the objectives.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[400] The operative words of s171(1)(c) are to determine whether or not the works and Designation are “reasonably necessary”. This term, which has often been applied, lies somewhere between expedient or desirable on the one hand and essential on the other.

[401] In providing guidance the Courts have held that s171(1)(c) does not require or allow for an assessment of whether the selected form of the Project is the best way of achieving the objectives. Moreover, this section is not an opportunity to re-examine the requiring authority’s analysis of alternative options for the Project because the enquiries required under s171(1)(b) and s171(1)(c) are separate.

[402] NZTA within its evidence266 and submissions detailed Project objectives as being to: (a) To reconnect the currently closed Manawatū Gorge SH3 with a more resilient connection; (b) To reconnect the currently closed Manawatū Gorge SH3 with a more efficient connection than the Saddle Road and the Pahiatua track; and (c) To reconnect the currently closed Manawatū Gorge SH3 connection with a safer connection than the Saddle Road and Pahiatua Track.

[403] Ms Downs for NZTA elaborated that these objectives focus on the urgent task of replacing what has been lost, that is, reconnecting the regions to the west and east via a Highway across rural land, and creating a higher quality connection than was provided by the Gorge Road before that connection was severed.

[404] Ms Downs noted the Project is intended to perform the same essential transport function as the Gorge Road did, as an important connection forming part of SH3, albeit she said with vastly improved geometric criteria and shoulders to provide for faster and safer travel by all users.

[405] Within circulated evidence and at the hearing submitters and the s42A authors raised a challenge that the Project as then presented did not achieve the safety related objective (c), particularly for cyclists and pedestrians. They contended that because the Project did not provide and/or include a separated shared pedestrian and cycling path, the Project did not provide safety for cyclists utilising the proposed road. Much of the evidence also detailed the lack of safe cycling routes, highlighting existing safety issues for cyclists using both Saddle Road and the Pahiatua Track.

[406] Ultimately, we do not have to decide this particular issue because NZTA within its Reply amended the Project and committed to constructing a separated walking and cycling path connecting Ashhurst and Woodville as part of the Project. That clearly meets objective (c) in respect of providing a safer pedestrian and cycling route than either the Saddle Road or the Pahiatua Track.

[407] Based on the NZTA evidence we accept the Project will provide significant benefits to people living in, travelling between, and travelling through the Manawatū and Tararua, in terms of safety resilience and efficiency.

[408] We readily accept that the Project is critical for regional economic growth as the principal East-West link between Manawatū and Hawke’s Bay. We accept that the new route as detailed by NZTA witnesses will be a significant improvement on the resilience and availability of the Gorge Road. The Project, will we accept, realise opportunities for connectivity to land use development, freight hubs, efficiency, and tourism.

[409] We agree with the evidence of Mr Dunlop for NZTA that the Project will achieve significant safety improvements for road users because it will be built to much safer geometric standards than either the Saddle Road or the Pahiatua Track, and the now closed Gorge Road.

[410] We also agree safety will be further enhanced because the new road will include a continuous median separation of east and west bound traffic. Further, the new road is expected to have a KiwiRAP safety

266 EIC Sarah Downs.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

rating of between 4.1 and 4.5 stars, being significantly better than the 2-3 star rating of other routes across the Ruahine ranges.

[411] We further agree with Mr Dunlop that the Project will provide a greatly enhanced transport environment for residents, pedestrians, and cyclists in and around Ashhurst, as the trucks and other traffic move away from that community onto the new highway.

[412] We agree with Ms Downs when she said the Project will generally speaking increase capacity within the roading network and improve efficiency for general traffic and freight, including public transport and emergency services.

[413] We accept Ms Downs evidence the Project will improve efficiency by significantly reducing travel times between Ashhurst and Woodville, by more than 10 minutes for light vehicles, emergency services, buses, and freight approximately halving the existing travel time and providing a faster connection than the Gorge Road did. Travel times between Aokautere and SH2 to the north of Woodville will be reduced by more than 24 minutes, again approximately halving the current travel time via the Pahiatua Track and Mangahao Road.

[414] We accept the NZTA evidence267 that the Project will greatly improve the resilience of the transport network in the event of a significant earthquake and/or slip, road accidents or other disruption. This is because the new road will be built to modern standards that are more resilient to incidents and events than the Gorge Road. We note that the Saddle Road and the Pahiatua Track will continue to offer alternatives. Further resilience will be provided by the new high-quality bridge crossing the Manawatū River.

[415] We also accept the NZTA evidence268 that the Project will promote economic development in the Manawatū-Whanganui, Tararua District and Wairarapa regions through significant improvements for freight movements and reduced travel times. We have noted earlier that current inefficiencies are estimated to be costing more than $22 million per annum. Increased economic activity and employment opportunities during the Project’s construction will also be provided.

[416] We also agree that the Project has a high degree of alignment with key strategic planning instruments, including the GPS and the RLTP that we outlined in section 4.3 of this Report.

[417] We did not receive any credible evidence that the works and Designation are not reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority, which we have detailed above, for which the Designation is sought. The enabling and construction works required to provide for the new road collectively comprise “the work” and they are clearly in our view reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the Project.

[418] There was one submission to the effect that the Gorge Road should be reopened. However, based on the evidence we have received we do not consider that to be an available option.

[419] Without the Designation achieving the objectives of NZTA as detailed above would in our view simply not be possible. The Project is intended to be constructed on land which is currently privatively owned. The land over which the Project is intended includes a substantial wind farm, a nationally important research farm (Ballantrae), land with QEII covenants in place, and land with significant indigenous vegetation and other high ecological values, including natural character and landscape values. So, for all of these reasons we are well satisfied a Designation is reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of NZTA for this Project.

267 EIC Sarah Downs, page 19. 268 Ibid, page 19.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[420] For the all of the reasons set out above we find that the works and Designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the Designation is sought. 5.5 Other Relevant Matters (section 171(1)(d)) [421] Earlier in this Report269 we identified other non-RMA statutes we considered were reasonably necessary to take into account as other matters in order to make a recommendation on these requirements. We also identified other strategic and planning related documents as other matters which we considered reasonably necessary to take into account or consider in order to make a recommendation. 270

[422] We record we have taken each of them into account in reaching our recommendation.

[423] We record we have also considered Table 37 in Part 1, Volume 2 of the NOR documentation which sets out in detail other matters that may be relevant to our consideration. That Table includes a discussion of each listed matter which we adopt, but do not repeat here for the sake of brevity.

[424] For the sake of completeness, we record that the s42A authors271 agreed that the statutes listed in Table 37 are relevant. The s42A authors suggested that there are other policy documents that should be given further consideration. However, with the exception of two items, namely “Safer Journeys 2010-2020” and “emerging iwi environmental management plans”, we understood that these policy documents had been considered by NZTA in Table 37.

[425] We have not been able to identify any other matter beyond those referenced within this Report that we consider reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the NOR.

6.0 Overall Findings

6.1 Section 171(1) and 171(1)(d) [426] Within this Report we have identified the relevant provisions of the main RMA statutory instruments that we must have particular regard to along with the relevant provisions of the main non-RMA statutory instruments and non-statutory documents we must have particular regard to under s171(1)(d).

[427] Taking into account those matters, as well as closely considering relevant conditions, we have considered and evaluated the adverse and beneficial effects on the environment of allowing the requirement.

[428] In terms of indigenous biodiversity, we first recognise that this Project is of regional and national significance. We also recognise the competing considerations to preserve and protect high-value indigenous biodiversity habitats. Our conclusion is that the relevant habitats have been preserved and protected as far as is reasonable in this case. Informed by relevant RMA statutory instruments we have concluded requiring total avoidance of the small areas of high-value indigenous habitat that may be rare, vulnerable or irreplaceable would be disproportionately onerous. In any event we have found that offsetting or compensating for adverse effects of those habitats is appropriate.

[429] Adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity are unavoidable given that the road will be a major new infrastructural element within the Manawatū Gorge Pohangina Valley and Ruahine ridgeline ONL areas. However, we have concluded those effects will be mitigated by landscape and amenity planting at strategic locations, planting indigenous vegetation along habitats fragmented by the road corridor, and by designing batter slopes and spoil disposal areas to integrate with adjoining natural landforms. We accept the new bridge across the Manawatū River will be an unavoidable and prominent visual element. However, the design of the bridge, the treatment of the abutment works, and the mitigation planting will in our view assist with integrating the bridge into its landscape setting.

269 Section 4.2 of this Report. 270 Section 4.3 of this Report. 271 Section 42A Technical Evidence: Planning By: Phillip Percy and Anita Copplestone, Consultant Planners, paragraph 120.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[430] Effects on natural character arose in the context of streams crossed by the NOR. We have found that the adverse effects on a whole of stream basis for the highest value streams will not significantly diminish those streams’ natural character. However, we acknowledge this matter will necessarily be revisited when the regional consents are sought for the new road. Taking into account the proposed Cultural and Environmental Design Framework, the Landscape Management Plan, and the Ecological Management Plan we are satisfied that there is a process in place enabling minimisation of any adverse natural character effects when detailed roading design is completed.

[431] Conditions specify maximum lengths of streams in the two QEII covenanted areas that can be permanently disturbed by diversion or other physical modification. We are satisfied that will mitigate adverse effects to the extent practicable on a whole of stream basis.

[432] In terms of network utilities, including the Te Āpiti windfarm, and other affected properties we are satisfied that the recommended conditions will suitably avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on them.

[433] Ballantrae is a special case. Within the limitations of our jurisdiction we have taken the approach of firstly seeking to avoid the effects of the NOR on Ballantrae as far as is reasonably practicable. We have not recommended a new alignment that totally avoids Ballantrae. Ultimately NZTA offered a mitigation package which we have largely incorporated into the conditions with the intent of avoiding, remedying or mitigating the effects of the new road on Ballantrae. We have modified the conditions to exclude the offered trust fund to facilitate post-graduate research in favour of assessing the future research needs of the North Island sheep and beef farming sector, as was suggested to us by witnesses for AgResearch. We consider that the overall package will as far as is reasonably practicable achieve NZTA’s intent.

[434] We are satisfied other effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, including operational noise and vibration, construction noise and vibration, effects on historic heritage and archaeology, effects on tangata whenua values and interests, are suitably managed taking into account the recommended conditions.

[435] In respect of positive effects, the new road will provide significant savings in journey time and road safety benefits for all travel modes. In particular, considerable beneficial road safety effects will occur as a result of NZTA’s offer to provide a separated shared path for pedestrians and cyclists from Ashhurst to Woodville, including a new shared path across the existing Ashhurst Bridge, and the extension of the Lindauer Trail from Woodville to appoint West of the eastern roundabout at Woodville Road.

[436] We are satisfied any adverse construction and operational social effects will be appropriately mitigated by NZTA’s proposed conditions. Confirming the NOR will result in significant positive social effects for the communities of Ashhurst and Woodville and the region generally. Those positive social effects include economic activity generated by construction works and indirectly through the spending by construction workers.

[437] Beneficial economic outcomes of confirming the NOR will be significant. Costs of the closure of the Gorge Road for freight operators are estimated to be $60,000 per day with effects on gross domestic product estimated to be $7 million per annum, lost outputs due to increased freight costs being of the order of $9 million per annum, and lost agglomeration efficiencies are estimated to be $5 million per annum. Approving the NOR will avoid all of these current economic costs replacing them with economic gains.

[438] Subject to Part 2 after considering and evaluating the adverse and beneficial effects on the environment, the relevant statutory instruments and other relevant matters including conditions and the relevant non- statutory documents, we are satisfied that the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement are acceptable and are in accord with the RMA’s purpose of sustainability.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway 6.2 Section 171(1)(b) [439] We are aware that the greater the impact on private land, and similarly the more significant the Project’s potential adverse effects, the more careful the assessment of alternative sites, route and methods needs to be.

[440] With this caution in mind we are well satisfied that NZTA’s approach and process to identifying assessing and evaluating alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work has been robust and we conclude that NZTA has given adequate consideration to these alternatives. 6.3 Section 171(1)(c) [441] Earlier in this Report we identified and discussed the objectives of the requiring authority for which the Designation is sought.

[442] Based on the application documentation, the submissions received on the NOR, the evidence and submissions at the hearing and the proffered conditions, for reasons advanced within this Report we are satisfied that the work and the Designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the Designation is sought. 6.4 Part 2 RMA [443] We received legal submissions from NZTA272 and the Director General of Conservation273 on the application of Part 2 to NOR decisions, referring to Davidson in the Court of Appeal and the High Court’s Basin Bridge decision. We understand that RMA decision-makers should usually consider Part 2 when making decisions on consents, but where the relevant plan provisions have clearly given effect to Part 2, there may be no need to do so as it “would not add anything to the evaluative exercise”. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness and given that s171(1) of the RMA is subject to Part 2 of the RMA, in this part of our Report we briefly consider relevant Part 2 provisions.

[444] NZTA assessed the NOR against Part 2 in their AEE274 and in the planning evidence of Ms McLeod.275 The s42A authors did not address Part 2 matters in a specific section of their report, rather they appeared to only address some Part 2 matters in association with their assessment of landscape and visual amenity effects276 and impacts on tangata whenua values.277

[445] In terms of s5 (and notwithstanding that it is not meant to be an operative provision), we accept that confirming the NOR will result in the significant economic, transport and social benefits outlined by Ms McLeod. We also accept that adverse effects will be appropriately managed by conditions that avoid, remedy, mitigate or offset adverse effects on natural and physical resources in the locality, and on people and communities.

[446] The NOR will preserve natural character to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, given that the crossing of the Manawatū River and a number of streams is unavoidable. While we do not consider the NOR to constitute an inappropriate form of use and development, we nevertheless consider that the river and streams will be protected through the imposition of ‘effects envelopes’ restricting the lengths of high value streams that can be disturbed, together with NZTA’s proposed restoration and mitigation planting, noting that natural character matters will be revisited in more detail under the regional consents process (s6(a)).

272 NZTA Opening Legal Submissions paragraphs 269 to 270. 273 Legal Submissions on Behalf of the Director General of Conservation, 1 April 2019, pages 5 to 9. 274 Section 46. 275 Paragraphs 214 to 220. 276 Section 8.6. 277 Section 8.9.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[447] The three ONLs unavoidably traversed by the NOR will be protected as far as is reasonable in the circumstances, including by way of the design constraints imposed by the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework and conditions, in particular the preparation of a Landscape Management Plan, sympathetic bridge design, and restoration and visual amenity planting (s6(b)). Areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna have been protected by way of a robust consideration of alternative routes (resulting in the avoidance of four QEII covenanted areas), and amongst other things the specification of ‘effects envelopes’ of allowable areas of vegetation and habitat removal, and proposed replacement planting.

[448] We are satisfied the Project will result in a net biodiversity gain (s6c)). Similarly, the above measures suitably have regard to the intrinsic values of ecosystems affected by the NOR and the quality and finite characteristics of the environment and natural resources that the NOR traverses (ss7(d), (f) and (g)). Importantly a stand of nationally critical swamp maire and nationally critical ramarama will be maintained.

[449] Public access to the affected waterbodies will be enhanced by the provision of the new road (s6(d)). The relationship of affected Maori with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga has been recognised and provided for by NZTA’s early engagement and the ongoing involvement of tangata whenua in the route selection and alignment design processes, including by way of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework and more specifically through the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan. This was most clearly enunciated in the supportive evidence of representatives from Rangitāne o Manawatū (s6(e)).

[450] The same conclusion applies to kaitiakitanga, the ethic of stewardship and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (ss7(a), 7(aa) and 8). Of note for an infrastructural project of this scale is the fact that there were no submissions from tangata whenua.

[451] The protection of historic heritage has been recognised and provided for through the route selection process which avoided any direct effects on scheduled heritage sites and through the seeking of an archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, together with the provision of an accidental discovery protocol (s6(f)). The risks from natural hazards can be managed as part of the detailed design process that is yet to come (s6(h)).

[452] The significant transport benefits resulting from the Project, including reduced travel times, will deliver fuel savings and therefore greater efficiency of the end use of energy (s7(ba). The amenity values of affected property owners will be avoided, mitigated, minimised or otherwise compensated for under the PWA and adverse effects on the visual amenity of the area will be maintained, largely as a result of the Project’s limited viewing audience. The removal of through traffic from Ashhurst will restore the amenity of that area (s7(c)). There was no evidence that the NOR will affect the habitat of trout and salmon (s7(h)).

[453] Limitations on visual amenity and replacement planting will minimise disruption of the on-going operation of, and electricity output from, the Te Āpiti wind farm (s7(j)).

[454] In overall terms, we find that there are no Part 2 considerations that substantially weigh against confirming the NOR.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway 7.0 Recommendations to NZTA

7.1 Recommendation [455] Our recommendation to NZTA is that the three NORs detailed in section 1.3 of this Report be confirmed, as modified throughout the submission and hearing process, for the Project known as Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway Project, including the conditions attached in Schedule A, some of which apply to all three NORs and some of which are applicable to a single District. 7.2 Reasons [456] We bear in mind that the single purpose of the RMA as expressed in s5(1) is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This case has raised considerations to which we must attach statutory weight that argue both for and against the NOR. It has been necessary to carefully weigh these matters and compare the conflicting considerations, the scale and degree and relative significance or proportion in arriving at the final outcome.

[457] Principally we have identified and considered effects on indigenous biodiversity, landscape and visual amenity, natural character, tangata whenua values and interests, network utilities and private property interests, all of which will to an extent we consider appropriate and practicable be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

[458] We consider the NOR as modified, principally by NZTA volunteering to include a separated shared pedestrian and cycle pathway, will enable the communities of Ashhurst, Woodville, the wider region and nationally to provide for their social and economic well-being. They will do so by utilising the natural and physical resources that fulfil NZTA’s objective of urgently providing a new road to replace the severed SH3 connection through the Manawatū Gorge.

[459] Providing that new road yields significant social and economic positive effects, and taking into account conditions intended to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects including construction and operation effects, we are well satisfied that the new road will substantially enhance traffic safety for all road users. This includes those who utilise the existing roading network in particular Saddle Road and the Pahiatua Track, both of which will be improved due to a reduction in traffic using them once the new road is opened.

[460] In having particular regard to statutory instruments, while focusing on policy outcomes or themes of them we are satisfied the requirements of those statutory instruments are suitably satisfied, or that our recommendation is consistent and not inconsistent with those requirements as detailed within this Report.

[461] We are also satisfied that NZTA has undertaken a robust consideration and evaluation of alternate sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work, particularly given private property and property occupied by network utility providers will be affected by the Project.

[462] We are well satisfied that the work and the Designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the Designation is sought.

[463] We have had particular regard to any other matters we consider are reasonably necessary in order to make our recommendation and conclude our recommendation finds support and is consistent with those other matters as detailed within this Report.

NZTA Notice of Requirement Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

[464] For these reasons and the more detailed reasons contained within the body of this Report we are satisfied that recommending to NZTA that it confirm the requirement, modified as detailed above and with the imposition of the conditions set out in Schedule A which attach to each NOR, achieves the RMA’s single purpose of sustainable management.

Paul Rogers (Chair)

Judith Makinson

Miria Pomare

Rob van Voorthuysen

24 May 2019

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Designation Conditions Index Number Item 1 General 2 Compliance with outline plan(s) and management plan(s) 3 Ecological Management Plan certification process 4 Amendments to certified Ecological Management Plan 5 Post-construction review of designation width 6 Post-construction removal of conditions 7 Lapse period 8 Outline plan(s) (enabling works) 9 Outline plan(s) (construction works) 10 Community Liaison Person 11 Communications Management Plan 12 Community Liaison Group 13 Complaints management 14 Construction Environmental Management Plan 15 Erosion and sediment control measures 16 Cultural and Environmental Design Framework 17 Landscape Management Plan 18 Replacement, offset or compensation planting 19 Planting Management Plan 20 Lizard Management Plan 21 Bat Management Plan 22 Avifauna Management Plan 23 Terrestrial Invertebrate Management Plan 24 Ecological Management Plan 25 At risk or threatened flora and fauna discovery protocol 26 Limits and assessment – construction noise 27 Limits and assessment – construction vibration 28 Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan 29 Construction Traffic Management Plan 30 Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan 31 Accidental discovery protocol and archaeological authority 32 Electrical clearances 33 National Code of Practice for Network Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors 34 Network Integration Plan 35 Ashhurst Bridge 36 Provision of shared paths 37 New Manawatu River Bridge 38 Recreational path connections 39 Road Safety 40 Noise bunds PN1 Outline Plan – Parahaki Island PN2 Western Car Park Construction Management Plan PN3 Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan M1 Outline Plan – Tararua High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipeline M2 Outline Plan – Palmerston North to Gisborne Rail Corridor T1 Te Āpiti Wind Farm Management Plan T2 National Grid Management Plan T3 Ballantrae Research Station and Fertiliser Trial Management Plan T4 Outline Plan – QEII National Trust open space covenants 41 Road surfacing 42 Traffic separation 43 Lot 2 DP 351133 landscaping 44 Post-construction Review 45 Lighting 46 Written consent under section 176 of the RMA - Te Āpiti Wind Farm 47 Ongoing monitoring and management

Page 62 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Definitions and Abbreviations ABBREVIATION/TERM/ACRONYM TERM/DEFINITION AgResearch AgResearch Limited BS British Standard Construction Activities undertaken to construct the Project, excluding enabling works, and including: . ground improvement works; . temporary and permanent drainage installation; . bulk earthworks (including cut and fill activities); . bridge and tunnel construction; . pavements and surfacing; . site reinstatement; . landscaping; and . installation of permanent road furniture and ancillary works Council(s) Palmerston North City Council, Manawatū District Council or Tararua District Council Cultural and Environmental Te Ahu a Turanga Cultural and Environmental Design Framework dated April 2019 Design Framework or as subsequently amended in accordance with Condition 16 dB Decibel District Plan Palmerston North City District Plan, Manawatū District Plan or Tararua District Plan ECR Environmental compensation ratio Enabling works Preliminary activities, including: . pre-construction site investigations (including access for such investigations); . site establishment activities; . site and property access formation; . ecological surveys and any necessary relocations; . any necessary reconfiguration of the Te Āpiti wind farm and other utilities infrastructure; . vegetation removal ancillary to enabling works; . vegetation protection; and . the establishment of erosion and sediment control measures First Gas First Gas Limited Frame site(s) field research measurement sites at Ballantrae Research Station ha Hectares KRH KiwiRail Holdings Limited

LAeq(24h) Time-average sound level over a twenty-four-hour period, measured in dB

LAFmax has the same meaning as the ‘maximum A-frequency weighted, F-time weighted sound pressure level’ in New Zealand Standard 6801:2008 Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound m Metres Meridian Meridian Energy Limited mm/s Millimetres per second NZECP 34:2001 New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances NZS New Zealand Standard NZTA New Zealand Transport Agency PPFs Protected premises and facilities

Page 63 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

ABBREVIATION/TERM/ACRONYM TERM/DEFINITION Project Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway Project Project Iwi Partners Rangitāne o Manawatū, Rangitāne o Tamaki Nui-ā-Rua, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Tāmaki Nui-ā-Rua, Ngāti Raukawa QEII Trust Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust, also known as the QEII National Trust Requiring Authority has the same meaning as section 166 of the RMA and, in the case of the Designation is NZTA Responsible Officer the Chief Executive Officer of each Council or their nominee; or such other person that has been delegated by one or more Council(s) as a Responsible Officer for the purposes of these Designations RMA Resource Management Act 1991 Shared path A safe, sealed, contraflow path for pedestrians and cyclists that is separated from the carriageway TPR Transpower New Zealand Limited Western Car Park The car park situated at the western end of the old Gorge Road that services the Manawatu Gorge Scenic Reserve

Construction Conditions (common to all jurisdictions)

General and Administration 1. General a) Except as modified by the conditions below, and subject to detailed design and accompanying outline plan(s), the Project must be undertaken in general accordance with the following information provided in ‘Te Ahu a Turanga; Manawatū Tararua Highway Project, Notices of Requirement for Designations’, dated 31 October 2018: i) Volume 2: Assessment of Effects on the Environment and Supporting Material Parts A to G; ii) Volume 2: Part J, Appendix Three – Preliminary Design Philosophy Report; iii) Volume 2: Part J, Appendix Four – Bridge and Retaining Wall Design Philosophy Report; iv) Volume 3: Technical Assessments; v) Volume 4: Plans and Drawings: A) land Requirement Plans LR-00 to LR-11; B) designation Plans D-00 to D-10; b) In addition to the matters set out in clause (a), the Project must be undertaken in general accordance with: i) The Cultural and Environmental Design Framework; and ii) The NZTA response (dated 15 January 2019) to the Councils’ section 92 request for further information; and c) Where there is inconsistency between the documents listed above and the requirements of these conditions, these conditions prevail. 2. Compliance with outline plan(s) and management plan(s) a) The Project must be undertaken in accordance with any: i) Approved Outline Plan(s); and ii) Management plan(s) required by Conditions 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, PN2, PN3, T1, T2 and T3. 3. Ecological Management Plan certification process (a) The Ecological Management Plan must be submitted to the Responsible Officer of the respective Council in electronic and hard copy form for certification at least 40 working days prior to the commencement of the works to which the Plan relates. The certification process must be confined to confirming that the Plan adequately gives effect to the relevant condition(s). (b) Subject to (c) and (e) below, works to which the Ecological Management Plan relates must not commence until the Requiring Authority has received written certification from the Responsible Officer(s). (c) If the Requiring Authority has not received a response from the Responsible Officer(s) within 20 working days of the date of submission under (a) above, the management plan must be deemed to be certified.

Page 64 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

(d) If the Responsible Officer(s) response is that that they are not able to certify the Ecological Management Plan they must provide the Requiring Authority with reasons and recommendations for changes to the Plan in writing. The Requiring Authority must consider any reasons and recommendations of the Responsible Officer(s) and resubmit an amended Ecological Management Plan for certification. (e) If the Requiring Authority has not received a response from the Responsible Officer(s) within 5 working days of the date of resubmission under (d) above, the Ecological Management Plan must be deemed to be certified. (f) If the Responsible Officer(s) response is that that they are still not able to certify the resubmitted Ecological Management Plan then the Requiring Authority must nevertheless include the resubmitted Plan in the Construction Environment Management Plan (Condition 14) and the relevant outline plan (Condition 9), with a notation that certification of the Ecological Management Plan has not occurred. 4. Amendments to certified Ecological Management Plan a) The certified Ecological Management Plan may be amended at the request of the Requiring Authority at any time. b) Subject to (c) and (f) below, works to which the amended Ecological Management Plan relate must not proceed until the Requiring Authority has received written certification of the amended Plan from the Responsible Officer(s). c) If the Requiring Authority has not received a response from the Responsible Officer(s) within 10 working days of the date of request under (a) above, the amended Ecological Management Plan must be deemed to be certified. d) If the Responsible Officer(s) response is that they are not able to certify the amended Ecological Management Plan they must provide the Requiring Authority with reasons and recommendations for changes to the Plan in writing. The Requiring Authority must consider the reasons and recommendations and resubmit an amended Ecological Management Plan for certification. e) If the Requiring Authority has not received a response from the Responsible Officer(s) within 5 working days of the date of resubmission under (d) above, the amended Ecological Management Plan must be deemed to be certified. f) If the Responsible Officer(s) response is that they are still not able to certify the resubmitted Ecological Management Plan then the Requiring Authority must engage an independent, suitably qualified and experienced expert to adjudicate on the area(s) of disagreement between the Requiring Authority and the Responsible Officers(s) and the determination of that expert with regard to those areas of disagreement must be included in the resubmitted Ecological Management Plan which shall thereafter be deemed to be certified. 5. Post-construction review of designation width a) As soon as practicable following completion of construction of the Project, the Requiring Authority must: i) Review the width of the area designated for the Project; ii) Identify any areas of designated land that are no longer necessary for the on-going operation or maintenance of the State Highway; or for on-going mitigation, offsetting, or compensation measures required to address adverse effects of the Project, including the Ramarama Protection Area identified on Figure B in the Statement of Evidence of Dr Adam Forbes (dated 8 March 2019); and iii) Give notice to the Council(s) in accordance with section 182 of the RMA that those parts of the designation identified in (ii) above are no longer wanted. 6. Post-construction removal of conditions a) Other than as specified in and required by Condition 47, the following conditions relate to the construction of the Project and only apply to construction activities and once construction of the Project is complete, they will no longer apply and can be removed as part of any subsequent District Plan review or change: i) Conditions 8 to 40; ii) Conditions M1 and M2; iii) Conditions PN1, PN2 and PN3; and iv) Conditions T1, T2, T3 and T4. b) For the avoidance of doubt, none of these conditions prevent or apply to works required for the ongoing operation or maintenance of the State Highway within the designation where the provisions of section 176A of the RMA apply. . 7. Lapse period The designation shall lapse if not given effect to within 10 years from the date on which it is included in a District Plan under section 175 of the RMA.

Page 65 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Outline plan(s) 8. Outline plan(s) (enabling works) a) An outline plan(s) must be prepared and submitted to the relevant Council in accordance with section 176A of the RMA for enabling works that are not otherwise a permitted activity pursuant to the relevant District Plan (unless the requirement is waived by the Council). b) In addition to the matters required by section 176A(3) of the RMA, the outline plan(s) must, to the extent that those matters are relevant to enabling works, demonstrate how the following are achieved: i) The matters in Condition 9(e); ii) Where relevant, compliance with the following conditions: A) condition PN1: Outline plan – Parahaki Island; B) condition M1: Outline plan – Tararua High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipeline; C) condition M2: Outline plan – Palmerston North to Gisborne Rail Corridor; D) condition T4: Outline plan – QEII National Trust open space covenants. c) The outline plan(s) (enabling works) is not required to include: i) Details of reinstatement of any non-permanent works if that matter will be or is addressed in any Outline Plan(s) (construction works); and ii) The management plans required by Conditions 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. 9. Outline plan(s) (construction works) a) An outline plan(s) must be prepared and submitted to the relevant Council in accordance with section 176A of the RMA. b) The outline plan(s) may be submitted for the entire Project or for one or more stages, aspects, sections or locations of works. c) The following must be included in each outline plan(s) as relevant to the particular design or construction matters being addressed: i) A Communications Management Plan (Condition 11); ii) A Construction Environmental Management Plan (Condition 14); iii) A Landscape Management Plan (Condition 17); iv) An Ecological Management Plan (Condition 24) which must include: A) a Planting Management Plan (Condition 19); B) a Lizard Management Plan (Condition 20); C) a Bat Management Plan (Condition 21); D) an Avifauna Management Plan (Condition 22); E) a Terrestrial Invertebrates Management Plan (Condition 23); v) A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Condition 28); vi) A Construction Traffic Management Plan (Condition 29); vii) A Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan (Condition 30); viii) A Network Integration Plan (Condition 34); vii) A Western Car Park Construction Management Plan (Condition PN2); viii) A Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan (Condition PN3); ix) A Te Āpiti Wind Farm Management Plan (Condition T1); x) A National Grid Management Plan (Condition T2); xi) A Ballantrae Research Station and Fertiliser Trial Management Plan (Condition T3); xii) Details of reinstatement and remediation works, including temporary and enabling works not covered by any other management plan or condition; xiii) The location and design of the shared path (Condition 36); xiv) A Cultural and Environmental Design Framework design review completed in accordance with Condition 16. d) Other than for amendments to the certified Ecological Management Plan (which is subject to the amendment process set out in Condition 4), the documents and plans referred to in clause (c) above may be amended to provide updated information or reflect changes in design, construction methods or the management of effects without the need for a further outline plan where: i) The amendment proposed is provided in writing to the Council(s); and either ii) The amendment is in general accordance with the outcome described in the original document or the purpose of the original plan, or

Page 66 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

iii) The amendment is required to give effect to an amendment to the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework (Condition 16). e) In addition to the matters required by section 176A(3) of the RMA, the outline plan(s) must demonstrate how the following are achieved: i) That the maximum length of the following streams (shown on Drawing C-10) permanently disturbed by diversion or other physical modifications is minimised as far as practicable and does not exceed: A) QEII Trust west (stem 7A): 350m in total; B) QEII Trust east (stems 6A, 6B and 6C): 460m in total. ii) That physical works within the Ramarama Protection Area identified on Figure B in the Statement of Evidence of Dr Forbes dated 8 March 2019 are restricted to restoration planting; iii) That the area of indigenous vegetation or exotic-dominated seepage wetlands removed does not exceed the maximum areas of vegetation or habitat able to be removed provided for in Table 1: Vegetation Removal and Replacement in Condition 18; iv) That in addition to the specific matters addressed in Conditions 34, M1, M2, T1 and T2, the scope, location and timing of works to relocate network utilities and any measures necessary to provide for the identification of, safety and protection of network utilities (in consultation with the network utility operator/Council); v) That except where Meridian provides written consent, the Project must not result in the removal of more than two turbines from the Te Āpiti wind farm; vi) The maintenance of permanent access to existing and relocated network utilities and Te Āpiti wind farm turbines, including uninterrupted access during construction of the Project; vii) That the design of the new bridge over the Manawatū River includes a shared pathway required by Condition 36 that also connects to the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve (on the northern bank of the Manawatū River); viii) Where relevant, compliance with the following conditions: A) Condition PN1: Outline plan – Parahaki Island; B) Condition M1: Outline plan – Tararua High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipeline; C) Condition M2: Outline plan – Palmerston North to Gisborne Rail Corridor; D) Condition T4: Outline plan – QEII National Trust open space covenants. Engagement and Participation 10. Community Liaison Person a) As soon as practicable, a Community Liaison Person must be appointed by the Requiring Authority as the main and readily accessible point of contact for persons affected by enabling or construction works for the duration of the enabling or construction phase of the Project. b) The Community Liaison Person is to be available by telephone during reasonable hours per day (for example, 6am to 10pm), seven days per week, determined in consultation with the Community Liaison Group. c) If the Community Liaison Person is not available for any reason, an alternative person must be nominated. d) The Requiring Authority must take appropriate steps to advise the Community Liaison Person’s name, telephone and email contact details, so that all members of the community can access the contact details. 11. Communications Management Plan a) As soon as practicable, and prior to the commencement of construction work activities, the Requiring Authority must prepare a Communications Management Plan that sets out procedures detailing how the public, stakeholders and residents will be communicated with throughout the enabling or construction work activities. b) The objective of the Communications Management Plan shall be to ensure that potentially affected parties are communicated with about ongoing design and enabling or construction management activities. c) As a minimum, the Communications Management Plan must include: i) Details of the Community Liaison Person (Condition 10), including the ways in which their contact details will be found, such as on the Project website and at site access points. ii) A list of stakeholders, organisations, businesses and residents who will be communicated with. iii) Topics of communication, including but not limited to: A) proposed hours of enabling or construction work activities where these are outside of normal working hours or on weekends or public holidays, including night-time heavy vehicle movements; B) proposed routes for enabling or construction vehicles, including the total number of vehicles, proportion of heavy vehicles and the times of day these routes will be used; C) methods to deal with concerns raised;

Page 67 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

D) methods to provide early notification to businesses of enabling or construction work activities, particularly any such activities that will or may impact on Saddle Road (and use of Saddle Road for traffic); E) methods to communicate on any temporary traffic management measures, including disruption of, or changes to, pedestrian and cycling routes and the reinstatement of those routes disrupted by closure of State Highway 3 through Manawatū Gorge (such as the Saddle Road/Pahīatua cycleway route); F) methods to communicate on any disruption of, or changes to, access to the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve walkways (and/or the Western Car Park during enabling or construction works); G) general conceptual design matters including but not limited to landscaping, rest areas, viewing points, and the shared path; H) progress of any enabling or construction works in comparison to key project milestones and completion dates; and I) details of communication activities proposed including: 1. details of a Project website for providing information to the public, publication of newsletters (or similar), and proposed newsletter delivery areas; 2. information days, open days or other mechanisms to facilitate community engagement; 3. newspaper advertising; and 4. notification and consultation with road user groups, business owners and operators and individual property owners and occupiers with premises/dwellings within 100 metres of active enabling or construction works activities, and for all businesses, pre-schools and schools in Woodville and Ashhurst. 12. Community Liaison Group a) As soon as practicable, but no later than 30 working days prior to the completion of either a Construction Environment Management Plan (Condition 14) or a Western Car Park Construction Management Plan (Condition PN2) the Requiring Authority must establish a Community Liaison Group to allow sufficient opportunity for consultation. b) The purpose of the Community Liaison Group is to: i) share information and, except for B), provide input on: A) detailed design, including planned landscaping, mitigation works (including offset, compensation and replacement planting) and enabling or construction works environmental management (particularly construction traffic); B) key project milestones; C) rest areas or viewing points that are integrated with the Project; D) opportunities to integrate the Project design with public access / walkway opportunities including to areas such as the Manawatū Gorge; E) planting plans (in accordance with Condition 19); F) provision of pedestrian access across the new Manawatū River bridge to provide views to the Manawatū Gorge; G) the design of the walking and cycling facilities required by Conditions 35, 36, 37 and 38; H) the Landscape Management Plan, the Construction Traffic Management Plan and the Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan; ii) report on and respond to concerns and issues raised in relation to enabling or construction works, particularly in respect of the existing local roads such as Saddle Road and Pahīatua Track; and iii) provide a forum to assist the Requiring Authority to monitor any effects on the community arising from enabling or construction works. c) The Community Liaison Group must hold meetings at least once every three months throughout the enabling and construction works period and up to twelve months following completion of construction works so that on-going monitoring information can be shared, discussed and responded to (noting that the Group may decide to meet less frequently or may be discontinued earlier at the agreement of the majority of non-Project participants, that is the majority of members not including the Project Liaison Person, Requiring Authority representatives and the enabling or construction works contractor). d) In addition to the Project Liaison Person and representatives of the Requiring Authority and the enabling or construction works contractor, the Requiring Authority will invite representatives of the following entities (at least) to be members of the Community Liaison Group: i) Ashhurst community (at least 3) and Woodville community (at least 3), Dannevirke (1), Palmerston North (1) – noting for accessibility it may be appropriate for the groups to meet separately in Woodville and Ashhurst;

Page 68 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

ii) Local schools, including Ashhurst School, Te Kōhanga Reo o Atawhai, Woodville School, and Learning Adventures; iii) Respective Responsible Officer(s); iv) The Manawatū Whanganui Regional Council; v) The Department of Conservation; vi) Project Iwi Partners; vii) Mr Tom Shannon; viii) Manawatū River Source to Sea; and ix) Road user group representatives, including accessibility, cycling and walking group representatives. e) The Requiring Authority must prepare an agenda and record minutes for each meeting. f) The Requiring Authority must maintain a record of issues raised by the Community Liaison Group and the Requiring Authority’s response to those issues (including reasons in circumstances where no action is taken). g) The Requiring Authority must meet all reasonable costs associated with resourcing the Community Liaison Group. 13. Complaints management a) At all times during enabling or construction works, the Requiring Authority must maintain a permanent register of any public or stakeholder complaints received in relation to adverse effects of the enabling or construction works for the Project. b) The register must include: i) The name and contact details (if supplied) of the complainant; ii) The nature and details of the complaint; iii) Location, date and time of the complaint and the alleged event giving rise to the complaint; iv) The weather conditions at the time of the complaint (as far as practicable), including wind direction; v) Other activities in the area, unrelated to the Project, that may have contributed to the complaint; vi) The outcome of the Requiring Authority’s investigation into the complaint; and vii) A description of any measures taken to respond to the complaint. c) The Requiring Authority must respond to the complainant as soon as reasonably practicable, as appropriate to the urgency of the circumstances, and within 10 working days at the latest. Construction Management 14. Construction Environmental Management Plan a) As soon as practicable, and prior to the commencement of construction works, the Requiring Authority must prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan. b) The objective of the Construction Environmental Management Plan is to set out measures that must be implemented to comply with the designation conditions and to appropriately remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of enabling or construction work activities. c) The Construction Environmental Management Plan must accompany any relevant outline plan prepared in accordance with Condition 9 and also include the following suite of management plans where they address works that are the subject of the outline plan(s): i) Communications Management Plan in accordance with Condition 11; ii) Landscape Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition 17; iii) Ecological Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition 24; iv) Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition 28; v) Construction Traffic Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition 29; vi) Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition 30; vii) Western Car Park Construction Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition PN2; and viii) Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition PN3. d) The Construction Environmental Management Plan must include (as a minimum): i) the roles and responsibilities of staff and contractors; ii) The environmental outcomes anticipated by: A) the Requiring Authority’s ‘Environmental and Social Responsibility Policy’ (2011) and relevant regional and district plan rules and associated performance standards and conditions (including those imposed by other authorisations or permissions), B) the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework; and C) relevant performance standards and conditions of the designation.

Page 69 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

iii) A description of the Project including: A) the enabling and construction works programmes and staging approach; B) enabling and construction works methodologies; C) a detailed site layout; D) the design and management specifications for all earthworks on-site, including disposal sites and their location; E) the design of temporary lighting for enabling and construction works and construction support areas; F) the approach to the management of enabling and construction works waste, taking into account the waste management hierarchy to reduce, re-use, recycle and recover, along with responsible disposal of residual waste; iv) a description of training requirements for all site personnel (including employees, sub- contractors and visitors); v) environmental incident and emergency management procedures; vi) environmental complaints management measures; vii) compliance monitoring, environmental reporting and environmental auditing, including a requirement to provide the results or outcomes of monitoring, reporting and auditing to the Responsible Officer(s); viii) the details for emergency contact personnel who must be contactable 24 hours, 7 days a week; ix) site security arrangements; x) an accidental discovery protocol, where required by and in accordance with Condition 31; xi) a requirement for a copy of the Construction Environmental Management Plan to be held at all site offices; xii) methods for amending, augmenting and updating the Construction Environmental Management Plan; and e) The Construction Environmental Management Plan must be updated to incorporate any requirements of Regional Council resource consents. 15. Erosion and sediment control measures All erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with Auckland Council GD05 “Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region”, June 2016 (GDO5) or any subsequent revisions of that document. Landscape, Visual Amenity and Natural Character 16. Cultural and Environmental Design Framework a) The detailed design of the Project must achieve the corridor design principles and emerging design outcomes contained in the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework. b) Any management plan required by conditions of this designation, or outline plan prepared and submitted in accordance with section 176A of the RMA, must demonstrate compliance with (a) through the completion of the ‘design review template’ (attached as Appendix B to the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework). c) Subject to (d) below, the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework may be amended to take into account the outcomes of consultation with Project Iwi Partners, the Department of Conservation, the Councils, the Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Council, the QEII National Trust, the Te Āpiti Manawatu Gorge Governance Group, the Community Liaison Group, affected network utility providers, Meridian, and AgResearch. d) Sections 1.5 ‘Iwi Crown Partnership and Treaty of Waitangi Settlements’; 2.1 ‘Tangata Whenua Principles’; Appendix A.2 ‘Cultural Values and Narratives’; and Appendix A.3 ‘Sites of Significance to Tangata Whenua’ of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework may be amended, including to incorporate outcomes of cultural management and monitoring activities undertaken in accordance with Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan required by Condition 30, if the amendment: i) is an agreed outcome of consultation with Project Iwi Partners; and ii) does not delete content of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework. e) In the event that agreement to amend the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework as provided in (d)(i) above is not obtained with the Project Iwi Partner(s) then the April 2019 version of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework applies. f) If the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework is amended in accordance with (c) or (d) above, a copy of the amended Cultural and Environmental Design Framework must be provided to the Responsible Officer of each Council.

Page 70 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

g) If an amendment to the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework would materially affect the content of the certified Ecological Management Plan or an approved outline plan, then an amended Ecological Management Plan must be submitted for certification in accordance with Condition 4 or an amended outline plan must be submitted for approval in accordance with Condition 9. 17. Landscape Management Plan a) The objective of the Landscape Management Plan is to address the potential adverse effects of the Project on landscape, visual amenity and natural character values by describing the integration of the Project’s permanent works into the surrounding landscape and establishing the requirements for landscape mitigation works and to ensure that planting is completed as soon as is reasonably practicable following the completion of each stage of, or discrete location of, construction works b) The Landscape Management Plan forms part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan required by Condition 14 and must: i) be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced person; ii) have particular regard to the outcomes of consultation with landowners within the Designation, the Project Iwi Partners, the Department of Conservation, the Council(s), the Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council, the QEII National Trust, the Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group, the Community Liaison Group, Meridian, and Manawatū River Source to Sea; iii) As a minimum, the Landscape Management Plan must: A) describe how permanent works, such as earthworks areas, are integrated into the surrounding landscape and topography, including (but not limited to) the restoration of areas used for temporary work and enabling or construction works yards and the opportunity for the permanent exposure of valuable geological profiles to provide geosites; B) describe and map indigenous vegetation that is to be retained and any proposed new landscape and visual amenity plantings; C) require any proposed new landscape or visual amenity planting to be undertaken as soon as is reasonably practicable following the completion of works and in accordance with the Planting Management Plan required by Condition 19; D) describe proposed planting at 75 Hope Road, developed in consultation with the owners of 75 Hope Road, to screen views of the new road; E) demonstrate: 1. the integration of works and planting required by the Landscape Management Plan with any replacement, offset or compensation planting required by Condition 18; 2. opportunities for the planting of stream riparian and wetland margins to restore natural character values. v) Planting required by the Landscape Management Plan within a portion of the Te Āpiti wind farm indicated by property reference numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 on Land Requirement Plan LR-11 dated October 2018 must: A) be within the Designation boundary; and B) not exceed a height of 1.5 metres at maturity except where: 1. the planting is for the restoration of areas subject to QEII Trust open space covenants at 31 October 2018 and shown on Plan C-06 dated October 2018 (where the planting is in a similar location and as exists on 31 October 2018 and Meridian is consulted in respect of the species proposed to be planted); or 2. the requirements of clauses A) or B) are not met and Meridian provides the Requiring Authorty with its written consent to such planting; or 3. the planting is within areas of existing vegetation habitat types that are expected to grow higher than 1.5m.

Page 71 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Terrestrial Ecology 18. Replacement, offset or compensation planting Replacement, offset or compensation planting must: a) Be provided in accordance with the environmental compensation ratios (ECR) set out in Table 1, or in accordance with an ECR revised in pursuant to Condition 24(b)(ii)(I). Where vegetation or habitat removal is less than the maximum area, the minimum area of replacement planting must be calculated by multiplying the slope-corrected area of affected vegetation by the ECR for the relevant ecosystem type. Table 1: Vegetation Removal and Replacement Ecosystem type Maximum area of ECR Minimum area of vegetation or habitat replacement, offset or able to be removed compensation planting (ha) (ha) Secondary broadleaved forests with 3.07 5 15.35 old-growth signatures Old-growth treelands 0.41 5 2.05 Kānuka forests (CH4000 – 4400) 1.00 5 5.00 Kānuka forests (elsewhere) 0.59 5 2.95 Advanced secondary broadleaved 0.50 5 2.50 forests (CH5600 -5800) Advanced secondary broadleaved 0.48 5 2.40 forests (elsewhere) Secondary broadleaved forests and 0.86 3 2.58 scrublands (CH6100 – 6400) Secondary broadleaved forests and 15.60 3 46.80 scrublands (elsewhere) Mānuka and kānuka shrublands 1.22 1.5 1.83 (CH6100 – 6400) Mānuka and kānuka shrublands 2.82 1.5 4.23 (elsewhere) Divaricating shrublands 0.33 3 0.99 Old-growth forests (alluvial) 0.15 12 1.80 Old-growth forests (hill country) 1.00 10 10.00 Raupō dominated seepage wetlands 0.13 4 0.52 (high value) Indigenous-dominated seepage 1.12 3 3.36 wetlands (moderate value) Exotic-dominated seepage wetlands 2.74 1.5 4.11 (low value)

b) Include the planting of swamp maire at the following rates: i) 100 swamp maire trees for each existing swamp maire tree affected by more than 10% of live growth pruning as determined by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced arborist; ii) 200 swamp maire trees for each existing swamp maire tree where a swamp maire tree dies as a result of enabling or construction works activities, as determined by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced arborist. c) Include the planting of ramarama at a rate of 1:100 where any ramarama greater than 15 centimetres tall located outside of the Ramarama Protection Area (shown on Figure B in the Statement of Evidence of Dr Forbes dated 8 March 2019) is removed as a result of enabling or construction works activities. d) Not be located within a portion of the Te Āpiti wind farm indicated by property reference numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 on Land Requirement Plan LR-11 dated October 2018 except where:

Page 72 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

i) Meridian provides the Requiring Authority with its written consent to such planting; or ii) The planting is for the restoration of areas subject to QEII Trust open space covenants at 31 October 2018 and shown on Plan C-06 dated October 2018 (where the planting is in a similar location as exists on 31 October 2018 and Meridian and the QEII Trust are consulted in respect of the species proposed to be planted). e) The maximum area of exotic dominated seepage wetland able to be removed must be updated to include any additional exotic dominated seepage wetland identified in pre-construction surveys undertaken by the Requiring Authority. f) Include plantings additional to those required by (a) to (e) above in order to mitigate edge effects associated with indigenous vegetation removal. Advice Note: Section 3.2 of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework deals with the disruption (damage) of indigenous vegetaion and habitats. 19. Planting Management Plan a) The objective of the Planting Management Plan is to ensure that any planting required by Conditions of this Designation is undertaken in an appropriate manner to facilitate the ongoing survival of those plants. b) The Planting Management Plan forms part of the Ecological Management Plan required by Condition 24 and must: i) Be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced expert (such as an arborist, terrestrial ecologist or landscape architect) in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Project Iwi Partners; ii) Take into account the outcomes of that consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Project Iwi Partners; iii) Require that all planting to be completed within the three planting seasons following the completion of construction works; iv) Identify areas (including legal boundaries) where planting is to occur including: A) where planting is to be staged with reference to the construction works programme; and B) canopy gap planting in retired areas and any areas of edge buffer planting; C) areas for planting required by Conditions 17 and 18; v) Describe where the plants will be eco-sourced from (including species genetic source and propagation methodology); vi) Describe plant species mixes; plant spacing, density and layout; plant size (at time of planting); and planting methods (including ground preparation, mulching and trials); vii) Describe fencing, stock exclusion, or any other physical works necessary to protect planted areas; viii) Describe the legal arrangements (land purchase, leasing or covenanting) to be entered into to ensure the plantings are retained in perpetuity; ix) Include a plant pest management programme that as a minimum targets species that threaten new or replacement plantings, forest regeneration, forest succession, and the regeneration of any retirement areas; x) Include an animal pest management programme to manage possums and rats to achieve and maintain a 5% or better residual trap catch/tracking index score (or equivalent monitoring method); xi) Describe the ongoing maintenance and management of planted areas, including a requirement that over a 5-year period plants that fail to establish are replaced; or in the case of planting required under Condition 18 until 80% canopy cover is achieved; xii) Describe how the potential for bird strike from vehicles using the road will be reduced through plant species selection in proximity of the new road; xiii) Include a species list for divaricating shrubland replacement planting that has a high representation of the indigenous plant genera/species Coprosma rhamnoides, Melicytus, Olearia virgata, Olearia solandri, Muehlenbeckia, Parsonsia and Rubus, (subject to the reasonable availability of those genera/species). 20. Lizard Management Plan a) The objective of the Lizard Management Plan is to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the Project on lizards. b) The Lizard Management Plan forms part of the Ecological Management Plan required by Condition 24 and must: i) Be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced ecologist in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Project Iwi Partners; ii) Take into account the outcomes of any consultation with the Project Iwi Partners and the Department of Conservation;

Page 73 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

iii) Describe the methodology for survey, salvage, transfer and release, including the identification of potential habitats for survey and planned and opportunistic relocations; iv) Identify release sites (which may include the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve, subject to permission being granted by the Department of Conservation) and confirm any works necessary to protect such sites from predation or disturbance (when the sites are not in the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve); and v) Be updated to achieve consistency with any authorisation given by the Director-General of Conservation under section 53 of the Wildlife Act 1953 where any such authorisation is required. 21. Bat Management Plan a) The objective of the Bat Management Plan is to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the Project on bats. b) The Bat Management Plan forms part of the Ecological Management Plan required by Condition 24 and must: i) Be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced ecologist in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Project Iwi Partners; ii) Include procedures for the removal of any bat roosts (including measures to retain and monitor any active roosting site) identified in the Designation; iii) Where necessary, set out an approach to habitat replacement and pest control; and iv) Be updated to achieve consistency with any authorisation given by the Director-General of Conservation under section 53 of the Wildlife Act 1953 where any such authorisation is required. 22. Avifauna Management Plan a) The objective of the Avifauna Management Plan is to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the Project on avifauna. b) The Avifauna Management Plan forms part of the Ecological Management Plan required by Condition 24 and must: i) Be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced ecologist in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Project Iwi Partners; ii) In the Manawatū River riverbed: A) describe the measures necessary (prior to the July to March breeding season) to deter black- fronted dotterels and banded dotterels from nesting; B) set out the methodology for a pre-construction survey to identify any nesting dotterels; C) if nesting dotterels are present, in accordance with the NZTA’s ‘Guidance in relation to New Zealand dotterels on NZTA land’ dated November 2012: 1. require the establishment an exclusion area around the nesting area within which works may not be undertaken until nesting activities are completed; and 2. provide for the relocation (by driving away under the supervision of an suitably qualified and experienced person) of the dotterels that are not actively nesting; iii) For any vegetation clearance between the months of September and January in potential whitehead nesting habitats: A) set out the methodology for a pre-construction survey to identify any nesting whiteheads; B) if nesting whiteheads are present, require the establishment of an exclusion area around the tree containing the nest and immediately adjacent trees within which works may not be undertaken until nesting activities are completed. v) For any clearance or mowing of rank grass between the months of August and March: A) set out the methodology for a pre-construction survey to identify any nesting pipit; B) if nesting pipit are present, require the establishment of an exclusion area around the nesting area within which works may not be undertaken until nesting activities are completed. vi) Prior to any works occurring in the raupō dominated seepage wetlands, as shown on Designation Plan D-02 dated October 2018, set out the methodology for a pre-construction survey for cryptic bird species. If nesting cryptic bird species are present, require the establishment of an exclusion area around the nesting area within which works may not be undertaken until nesting activities are completed. vii) Minimise disturbance as far as is practicable to the freshwater ponds located between CH9200 and CH9600 in order to maintain possible habitat for Australian coot and New Zealand dabchick. viii) Be updated to achieve consistency with any authorisation given by the Director-General of Conservation under section 53 of the Wildlife Act 1953 where any such authorisation is required.

Page 74 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

23. Terrestrial Invertebrate Management Plan a) The objective of the Terrestrial Invertebrate Management Plan is to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the Project on At-Risk or Threatened terrestrial invertebrates. b) The Terrestrial Invertebrate Management Plan forms part of the Ecological Management Plan required by Condition 24 and must: i) Be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced ecologist in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Project Iwi Partners; ii) Require, prior to the commencement of construction works, pre-construction surveys to determine: A) invertebrate community composition; B) the presence of ‘At Risk’ or ‘Threatened’ taxa (as defined by the Department of Conservation’s New Zealand Threat Classification System). iii) Inform any mitigation monitoring and any offsetting or compensation proposed under Condition 24(b) or 24(c); iv) Define the timing and locations of surveys intended to identify the presence of At-Risk or Threatened terrestrial invertebrates; v) Set out the appropriate levels of taxonomic resolution and/or community composition indices to be applied if At-Risk or Threatened terrestrial invertebrates are identified; vii) Where the pre-construction surveys detect the presence of ‘At-Risk’ or ‘Threatened’ taxa: A) identify the vegetation or habitats that should be avoided in the first instance; B) outline the optimal timing of vegetation clearance based on the ‘At-Risk’ or ‘Threatened’ taxa present; C) where appropriate, describe the methods of direct invertebrate management; D) identify areas where measures to manage enabling or construction works activities apply; E) set out approaches to the restoration of invertebrate taxa/community composition in planting and retirement areas required by Conditions 18 and 24, including but not limited to: 1. wood disk steeping stones and long grass corridors; 2. the salvage and transfer of soils, coarse woody material or debris and leaf litter; and 3. detailed measures to create and/or restore habitats for populations of ‘At-Risk’ or ‘Threatened’ taxa impacted by the Project; 4. monitoring protocol for populations of ‘At-Risk’ or ‘Threatened’ taxa impacted by the Project, where monitoring forms part of the measures determined by Condition 24(b); and 5. biosecurity measures required in carrying out these activities. 24. Ecological Management Plan a) The Objective of the Ecological Management Plan to address the potential adverse effects of the Project on ecological and biodiversity values. b) The Ecological Management Plan must be certified in accordance with Condition 3 and form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan required by Condition 14. It must: i) Be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced person(s); ii) As a minimum: A) summarise the terrestrial ecology and biodiversity values and effects of the Project; B) take into account the outcomes of any consultation with the Project Iwi Partners, the Department of Conservation, the Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group and any other party having a direct interest in the land subject to planting required by Condition 18; C) include the Planting, Bat, Lizard, Avifauna, and Terrestrial Invertebrate Management Plans required by Conditions 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23; D) detail how vegetation to be removed will be identified on site; E) set out site staff induction procedures in respect of ecological requirements, including measures to prevent the introduction of pest plants; F) consider opportunities for: 1. the reuse of natural materials and felled trees by the Project Iwi Partners; and 2. community participation in planting; G) provide for the salvage and transfer of soils, coarse woody material or debris and leaf litter for use in areas of replacement and retirement planting; H) confirm the location of any areas to be retired from grazing; I) include a process for any revision of the ECRs contained in Condition 18.

Page 75 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

c) Taking into account the measures to avoid, remedy, mitigate, offset or compensate for adverse ecology effects (including the measures to be undertaken as described in the Ecological Management Plan), the Requiring Authority must, in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Project Iwi Partners: i) Determine the extent of any further offsetting or compensation necessary to achieve a net indigenous biological diversity gain with reference to the direction given by Policy 13-4 of the One Plan – Part II; ii) Where further offsetting or compensation is necessary, this may include (but not be limited to): A) the retirement of areas (where available) within the areas shown for this purpose on Figure 6.A.9 (in Appendix 6.A to Technical Assessment 6: Terrestrial Ecology); B) the retirement of additional areas in an alternative location, additional offset or compensation planting and/or additional pest management measures; C) funding provided to the Manawatū Gorge Governance Group to undertake activities described in the ‘Te Āpiti – Manawatū Gorge Biodiversity Management Plan’ dated 8 August 2017 including, but not limited to, items that are consistent with the section 4 of that Plan and the following items listed in section 6.1 of that Plan: 1. weed and animal pest survey and planning; 2. weed control; 3. animal control; 4. monitoring and reporting; 5. biodiversity enhancement; 6. landscape level linkages. iii) The required offsetting or compensation activities must be managed, where appropriate, in accordance with the management framework set out in the Ecological Management Plan. 25. At risk or threatened flora and fauna discovery protocol a) In the event of discovery or any ‘At-Risk’ or ‘Threatened’ flora or fauna (as defined by the Department of Conservation’s New Zealand Threat Classification System) within the Designation that is not specifically addressed by Conditions 20, 21, 22, 23 or 24, the Requiring Authority must determine a course of action: i) Based on the advice of an independent, suitably qualified and experienced ecologist; ii) With reference to the Ecological Management Plan framework; and iii) Taking into account the outcomes of any consultation the Project Iwi Partners and the Department of Conservation. b) The Requiring Authority must provide written advice to the Responsible Officer(s) setting out the course of action determined in accordance with clause (a). Construction Noise and Vibration 26. Limits and assessment – construction noise All construction works must be designed and conducted to ensure that, as far as practicable, construction noise does not exceed the limits in Table 2. Sound levels must be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics –Construction noise as follows (at occupied dwellings). Table 2: Construction Noise Limits

Time of week Time period LAeq LAfmax Weekdays 0630-0730 55 dB 75 dB 0730-1800 70 dB 85 dB 1800-2000 65 dB 80 dB 2000-0630 45 dB 75 dB Saturdays 0630-0730 45 dB 75 dB 0730-1800 70 dB 85 dB 1800-2000 45 dB 75 dB 2000-0630 45 dB 75 dB Sundays and public 0630-0730 45 dB 75 dB holidays 0730-1800 55 dB 85 dB 1800-2000 45 dB 75 dB 2000-0630 45 dB 75 dB

Page 76 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

27. Limits and assessment – construction vibration a) Construction vibration must, as far as practicable, comply with the criteria in Table 3, where: i) Measurement is in accordance with ISO 4866:2010 Mechanical vibration and shock – Vibration of fixed structures – Guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on structures; and ii) BS 5228-2 is British Standard BS 5228-2:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration. Table 3: Vibration Criteria Category A Category B Receiver Location Details PPV PPV Night 2000h to 0630h 0.3 mm/s 1 mm/s Occupied PPFs Inside the building Day 0630h to 2000h 1 mm/s 5 mm/s Other occupied Inside the building Day 0630h to 2000h 2 mm/s 5 mm/s buildings BS 5228-2 Vibration transient Table B.2 Unoccupied Building foundation 5 mm/s buildings 50% of BS Vibration continuous 5228-2 Table B.2

b) The Category A construction vibration criteria in the table above must be complied with as far as practicable. If measured or predicted vibration from construction activities exceeds the Category A criteria, an independent, suitably qualified and experienced person must assess and manage construction vibration during those activities. If measured or predicted vibration from construction activities exceeds the Category B criteria those activities must only proceed if vibration effects on affected buildings are assessed, monitored and mitigated by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced person. 28. Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan a) As soon as practicable, and prior to the commencement of construction works activities, the Requiring Authority must prepare a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan. b) The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan forms part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan required by Condition 14. c) The objective of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan is to demonstrate how compliance with the criteria in Conditions 26 and 27 will be achieved for the duration of construction of the Project. d) The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan must: i) Be prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced person and in general accordance with the requirements of Annex E2 of NZS 6803:1999; ii) Include, as a minimum: A) a description of the likely construction noise and vibration emissions; B) a description of the construction work, anticipated equipment and processes and their scheduled durations; C) a description of noise or vibration suppression devices to be used on equipment or processes; D) the hours of operation, including times and days when activities causing noise and/or vibration would occur; E) the construction noise and vibration criteria for the Project; F) identification of affected houses and other sensitive locations where noise and vibration criteria apply; G) methods and frequency for monitoring and reporting on construction noise and vibration; H) procedures for maintaining contact with stakeholders, notifying or proposed construction activities and handling noise and vibration complaints (consistent with the Communications Management Plan and complaints register); I) a description of alternative mitigation strategies where compliance with the criteria in Conditions 26 or 27 may not be achieved; J) procedures, developed in consultation with TPR, to remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects in instances where the construction vibration criteria set out in Condition 27 might not be complied with in respect of the Mangamaire – Woodville A 110kV National Grid transmission line support structures;

Page 77 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

K) procedures, developed in consultation with Meridian, to remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects in instances where the construction vibration criteria set out in Condition 27 might not be complied with in respect of Te Āpiti wind farm turbines; L) construction equipment operator training procedures and expected construction site behaviours; M) contact numbers for key construction staff, staff responsible for noise assessment and the Responsible Officer(s). Construction Traffic 29. Construction Traffic Management Plan a) As soon as practicable, and prior to the commencement of construction works activities, the Requiring Authority must prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan. b) The objective of the Construction Traffic Management Plan is to minimise adverse effects on property access, traffic safety and efficiency as a result of enabling or construction works activities. The Construction Traffic Management Plan forms part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan required by Condition 14 and must, as a minimum: i) Be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person; ii) Take into account the outcomes of any consultation with the Community Liaison Group (Condition 12), the Responsible Officer(s), and any relevant issues arising from the implementation of the Communications Management Plan (Condition 11); iii) Set out the numbers, frequencies, routes and timing of enabling or construction works traffic movements; iv) Identify site access routes and access points for heavy vehicles in a manner consistent with the NZTA’s Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management and describe measures to: A) monitor and manage, as necessary, the movements of heavy vehicles on Saddle Road during peak times; B) provide for access to the site to be gained (where possible) from both sides of the Ruahine Ranges; C) minimise, as far as practicable, any adverse effects of the movements of heavy vehicles accessing the site from Hope Road, including by: 1. restricting construction related heavy vehicle movements to between the hours of 0730 and 1800; and 2. consulting with the owners/occupiers of 29 Hope Road and 75 Hope Road to identify any further practicable measures to manage adverse effects on these properties; v) Describe methods to manage local and network wide effects of the construction of individual elements of the Project including, as a minimum, the roundabout connections at Ashhurst and Woodville including temporary traffic management measures; vi) Describe methods to limit the movement of construction related heavy vehicles through Ashhurst at night and peak times, including limiting night-time movements to oversized loads and essential movements (such as concrete trucks for continuous pours); vii) Describe methods to limit the movement of construction related heavy vehicles through Woodville at night, including limiting night-time movements to oversized loads and essential movements (such as concrete trucks for continuous pours); viii) Require all heavy construction vehicles to have effective noise suppression devices for engine brakes; ix) Give consideration to opportunities to reduce adverse effects though: A) use of KRH’s infrastructure to deliver construction materials to the Manawatū River bridge site; B) accelerated construction of the Manawatū River bridge and Hope Road bridge so that these bridges may be used to access the site; x) Set out how the current provision for pedestrians and cyclists is maintained; xi) Detail measures to provide on-going vehicle access to private and adjacent properties, including the Te Āpiti wind farm and the Western Car Park, and limit the adverse effects of construction and severance, including by forming any new permanent accesses at the earliest opportunity; and xii) Confirm the management approach to loads on heavy vehicles, including covering loads of fine material and the timely removal of any material deposited or spilled on public roads.

Page 78 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Tangata Whenua Values 30. Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan a) A Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan must form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (Condition 14). b) The objective of the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan is to recognise and provide for the tangata whenua values of the area affected by the Project and to develop mechanisms and processes to seek to avoid or minimise potential impacts on those values through the implementation of agreed monitoring and mitigation measures. c) The Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan must be prepared by a person (or persons) endorsed by the Project Iwi Partners and must include (but not be limited to): i) Enabling activities, including site dedications; ii) Cultural protocols and procedures for cultural inductions; iii) A description of specific monitoring activities to be undertaken; iv) Confirmation of the roles and responsibilities of personnel in respect of clauses(i) to (iii); v) Approaches to realising opportunities to reuse natural materials/trees, participation in planting, fish surveys and/or transfer, species monitoring and translocation; vi) Setting out the detailed accidental discovery protocol procedures development under Condition 31; vii) Consideration of potential effects on taonga species, or other species of significance to tangata whenua, including, but not limited to: A) koura; B) tuna; C) kererū; D) parapara (P. brunoniana); E) tī kōuka; F) toitoi; G) karaka; H) mataī; I) puku tawai; J) northern rātā; and viii) Any other matters or measure to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on tangata whenua values, customs and practices. Archaeology and Historic Heritage 31. Accidental discovery protocol and archaeological authority a) Where an area of the Designation is not subject to an archaeological authority (sought under section 44(a) and granted under section 48 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014), an accidental discovery protocol must apply to all works in that area. b) The accidental discovery protocol must be prepared in consultation with the Project Iwi Partners and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and must include, but not be limited to: i) Details of contractor training regarding the skills necessary to be aware of the possible presence of cultural or archaeological sites or material; ii) General procedures following the accidental discovery of possible archaeological sites, kōiwi tangata, wāhi tapu or wāhi taonga, including the requirement to immediately cease enabling or construction works activities in the vicinity of the discovery and the requirement to notify parties including, but not limited to, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; iii) Specific procedures in the event that kōiwi tangata are discovered; iv) Procedures for the custody of taonga (excluding kōiwi tangata) or material found at an archaeological site; v) Activities (including a review of available and relevant archaeological information) that must be undertaken before enabling or construction works activities in the vicinity of the discovery can recommence, including appropriate tikanga, recording, recovery of artefacts and consultation. c) In the event of kōiwi tangata being discovered, work must cease immediately in the vicinity of the remains and the Project Iwi Partners, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, New Zealand Police and the relevant Council(s) must be contacted.

Page 79 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

Network Utilities and Roading Infrastructure 32. Electrical clearances a) Enabling or construction works activities and structures must be designed and undertaken to comply with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001). b) The planting required by, and managed by, Conditions 17, 18, 19 and 24 must be selected, located and managed to ensure that it will not result in that vegetation breaching the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003, including at full maturity. 33. National Code of Practice for Network Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors All works must be undertaken in accordance with the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors (September 2016), or any approved update to the Code. 34. Network Integration Plan a) Prior to the commencement of construction, the Requiring Authority must prepare a Network Integration Plan. b) The objective of the Network Integration Plan is to demonstrate how the Project integrates with the existing local road network including pedestrian and cycling facilities and with future, planned, improvements to the network (including the shared path that will be provided in accordance with Condition 36). c) The Network Integration Plan must be prepared in consultation with the relevant road controlling authority and, as a minimum, include: i) Details of proposed works at the interface between the State Highway and the local road network, including road surfacing, road markings and signs; ii) The outcomes of any consultation with the Community Liaison Group established by Condition 12; iii) Confirmation that the Project design does not preclude the future development of the balance of the Lindauer Arts Trail (Woodville to Manawatū Gorge walkway); iv) Specification of how the following requirements will be met: A) prior to the opening of the new road, the improvement of the intersections of State Highway 3 with York Street and Cambridge Avenue to redirect traffic onto the new road; B) the extension of the existing walkway from Hampson Street, Woodville to west of the eastern roundabout; C) the provision of a shared path along the northern side of SH3 from the intersection of Cambridge Avenue to the Western Car Park; and D) the upgrading of the Ashhurst Bridge required by Condition 35. 35. Ashhurst Bridge Prior to the opening of the new road, and subject to any necessary resource consents for the upgrade works being granted, the Ashhurst Bridge on State Highway 3 must be improved to provide separated pedestrian and cyclist access. 36. Provision of shared path(s) a) Prior to the opening of the new road a shared path(s) must be in place along the entire length of the new road including across any bridges; and i) Starting at the northern side of SH3 at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue in Ashhurst; ii) Connecting to the Western Car Park; and iii) Ending at Hampson Street in Woodville. b) The shared path(s) must: i) Be separated from the carriageway of the new road by, at minimum, a wire barrier; ii) Subject to (c) below, be designed and constructed in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A Appendix A Figure A1: Bicycle Path Operation Scenario C or any subsequent revisions of that document; and c) Have a minimum sealed width of 3.0 metres for the entire length of the new road and have a minimum width of 0.2m clearance from any barrier. 37. New Manawatu River Bridge The new Manawatu River Bridge must include a pedestrian viewing platform(s) providing views upstream or downstream. The viewing platform(s) must be physically separated from shared path and the carriageway for pedestrian safety reasons. The viewing platform(s) must have direct access for pedestrians from the Western Car Park.

Page 80 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

38. Recreational Paths Fund a) As soon as practicable, the Requiring Authority must establish and administer a Recreational Paths Fund of $1 million. b) The purpose of the Fund is to enable the investigation and construction of recreational paths that potentially connect to the shared path required by Condition 36. c) Activities under (b) are to be undertaken in consultation with the Project Iwi Partners, Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group, the Councils, and relevant landowners. d) Construction activities under (b) are subject to land availability and obtaining any necessary statutory approvals. e) The Fund must remain available until the $1 million is spent. 39. Road Safety a) Road safety audits must be carried out for the Requiring Authority at the detailed design stage and pre- opening/post-construction stages by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced road safety auditor or audit team. b) The Requiring Authority must request that the independent road safety auditor or audit team expressly consider, amongst other matters, the safety of the Project in respect of vulnerable road users. c) The Requiring Authority must provide to the Responsible Officer(s), within two weeks of their completion, the outcomes of the detailed design and pre-opening/post-construction stages road safety audit processes. 40. Noise bunds a) Prior to undertaking construction works activities in the vicinity of 1213 Fitzherbert East Road or 49846 State Highway 3 (subject to reasonable property access and land availability): i) An extended earth bund must be designed and constructed along the roadside boundary of the designation with 1213 Fitzherbert East Road for the purpose of operational noise mitigation and visual screening. The design must be undertaken in consultation with the owners/occupiers of the property. ii) An earth bund must be designed and constructed along the roadside boundary of the designation with 49846 State Highway 3, Woodville, for the purpose of operational noise mitigation and visual screening. The design must be undertaken in consultation with the owners/occupiers of the property. b) An independent, suitably qualified and experienced person must design the bunds provided for 1213 Fitzherbert East Road and 49846 State Highway 3 required by i) and ii).

Construction Conditions (Palmerston North City only)

Parahaki Island PN1 Outline Plan – Parahaki Island a) Where an Outline Plan(s) describes works related to the bridging of the Manawatū River, including any piers, abutments and the northern and southern approaches (and associated construction access), the Requiring Authority must: i) Consult with the Te Āpiti Ahu Whenua Trust for the purpose of recognising the values of Parahaki Island and providing for those values including by: A) minimising, as far as practicable, any impact of the enabling or construction works activities or Manawatū River bridge piers on Parahaki Island; B) identifying opportunities to recognise the historical and cultural significance of Parahaki Island in the design of Manawatū River bridge and approaches to the bridge; C) identifying opportunities for landscape or ecological mitigation planting required by Conditions 17, 18 and 24 on Parahaki Island. ii) As a minimum, include the following in the Outline Plan(s): A) details of the consultation undertaken with the Te Āpiti Ahu Whenua Trust, including comments made in relation to the matters listed in a) and any measures taken by the Requiring Authority to respond to these comments. Recreation and Open Space PN2 Western Car Park Construction Management Plan a) Prior to any enabling or construction works that affect access to or use of the car park at the western boundary of the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve and/or access to the Manawatū Gorge walking tracks, a Western Car Park Construction Management Plan must be prepared. b) The objective of the Western Car Park Construction Management Plan is to detail how public access will be maintained for the duration of enabling and construction works activities.

Page 81 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

c) The Western Car Park Construction Management Plan must be prepared in consultation with the landowner, Department of Conservation, Palmerston North City Council, Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group, the Project Iwi Partners, and the Community Liaison Group and must be consistent with the design principles and design outcomes in section 3.1.1 of the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework. d) The Western Car Park Construction Management Plan must include, as a minimum: i) While allowing for construction activities, provision of a temporary car park that is generally of the same standard of surface and parking capacity that the existing car park had at 31 October 2018; ii) Details of how public access between any temporary carpark and the Manawatū Gorge Walking Track will be provided; iii) A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Safety Site Assessment; and iv) Details of any changes to or temporary relocation of existing way finding and interpretation signs within and adjacent to the Western Car Park (including signs to existing walking tracks and to any pedestrian access or viewpoints for pedestrians on the new Manawatū River bridge) and any upcoming closure information. e) If a temporary closure to the Western Car Park is required this must only occur during weekdays and for no more than two consecutive working weeks at a time. The Department of Conservation, the Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group and the Responsible Officer(s) must be made aware of the details of the temporary closure at least 10 working days prior to the closure occurring. PN3 Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan a) Within one year of commencing the construction of works in the proximity of the Western Car Park that will directly affect that car park, a Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan must be prepared. b) The Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan must be prepared in consultation with the landowner, Department of Conservation, Palmerston North City Council, the Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group, the Project Iwi Partners and the Community Liaison Group and be consistent with the design principles and design outcomes in the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework. c) The Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan must, as a minimum: i) Provide for at least the same number of car parks as the number that existed at 31 October 2018; ii) Provide for at least the same number of toilet and bike parking facilities that existed at 31 October 2018; iii) Provide for at least the same public access to the Manawatu River that existed at 31 October 2018; iv) Include a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Safety Site Assessment; v) Incorporate any decisions regarding the future status of the closed section of State Highway 3 immediately adjacent to the car park that existed at 31 October 2018; vi) Take into account the final masterplan prepared by the Te Āpiti Manawatū Gorge Governance Group; vii) Describe the reinstatement of land used for construction including: A) removal of structures, plant and materials associated with construction (unless otherwise agreed with the landowner); B) replacement or reinstatement of formal parking areas, boundary fences, landscaping and way finding and interpretation signs within and adjacent to the Western Car Park (including signs to existing walking tracks and to any pedestrian access or viewpoints for pedestrians on the new Manawatū River bridge); C) reinstatement of grassed areas to a similar condition as existed prior to construction; and D) replacement of trees and other planting removed as part of construction activities. viii) Include details of the consultation undertaken under clause (b) above, including the comments made and any measures taken by the Requiring Authority to respond to these matters.

Construction Conditions (Manawatū District only)

Network Utilities M1 Outline Plan – Tararua High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipeline Where an Outline Plan(s) describes enabling or construction works that traverse the Tararua High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipeline, the Requiring Authority must: a) Consult with First Gas in order to develop any necessary measure to ensure that no enabling or construction works activities, and particularly site access, cause material damage to or affect the operation and maintenance of the pipeline.

Page 82 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

b) Include details of the consultation undertaken and any measures to protect the pipeline in the Outline Plan. M2 Outline Plan – Palmerston North to Gisborne Rail Corridor Where an Outline Plan(s) describes enabling or construction works within or adjacent to the Palmerston North to Gisborne rail corridor, the Requiring Authority must: a) Consult with KRH for the purpose of appropriately avoiding, remedying or mitigating any potential adverse effects of the Project (including as a result of access across the corridor) on the continued operation, maintenance and upgrading of the rail line. b) Include details of the consultation undertaken and any measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects in the outline plan. c) Set out how any measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects identified in accordance with clause (b) may be reviewed and updated, as necessary. Advice Note: Written consent from KRH under section 177(1)(a) of the RMA is required independent of this condition.

Construction Conditions (Tararua District only)

Network Utilities and Infrastructure T1 Te Āpiti Wind Farm Management Plan a) As soon as practicable, and prior to any construction works, being undertaken within the portion of the Te Āpiti wind farm site indicated by property reference numbers 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 on Land Requirement Plan LR-11 dated October 2018, the Requiring Authority must prepare a Wind Farm Management Plan. b) The objective of the Wind Farm Management Plan is to set out measures to avoid where practicable the potential effects of the Project on wind farm operations provided for by the wind farm resource consent (granted on 3 September 2003) and, where avoidance is not possible, set out measures to remedy or mitigate such effects. c) The Wind Farm Management Plan must, as a minimum: i) Be prepared in consultation with Meridian; ii) Include details of the consultation undertaken, including measures taken by the Requiring Authority to respond to Meridian’s comments and feedback; iii) Describe the details of the on-going access arrangements, including for over-dimensional loads, and as required by Condition 9(e)(vi) to accommodate Meridian’s operation, maintenance and upgrade requirements; iv) Describe the details of management of construction traffic within the wind farm; v) Describe measures to protect underground infrastructure, as required by Condition 9(e)(iv); vi) Include technical, engineering and geotechnical advice from suitably qualified and experienced person(s) in relation to the impact of the enabling or construction works activities on the safe and efficient operation of a turbine where: A) enabling or construction works activities (other than for the relocation of underground infrastructure and wind farm accesses) are within 160 metres of a turbine location shown on the plan marked “Drawing No. 1 (Rev 3) General Site Plan With Topo Information” (referenced in the resource consent granted on 3 September 2003) except that in the case of turbines A11, A12 and A13 (now known as TAP01, TAP02, and TAP03) this distance is limited to 60m when closer to Ashhurst; and B) that turbine is not removed as part of the Project; vii) Confirm compliance with NZECP 34:2001; viii) Set out details of site management and security; ix) Describe arrangements for wind farm site inductions and contractor training, including Meridian’s involvement in that training; and x) Confirm measures to manage the effects of dust that may damage the turbines, substation or overhead electricity transmission lines. T2 National Grid Management Plan a) Prior to any construction works, or enabling works, being undertaken in the vicinity of the Mangamaire – Woodville A 110kV transmission line, the Requiring Authority must prepare a National Grid Management Plan. b) The objective of the National Grid Management Plan is to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential effects of the Project on the operation and maintenance of the Mangamaire – Woodville A 110kV transmission line.

Page 83 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

c) The NGMP must, as a minimum: i) Be prepared in consultation with TPR; ii) Include details of the consultation undertaken, including measures taken by the Requiring Authority to respond to TPR’s comments and feedback; iii) Demonstrate how construction works and associated activities are designed and undertaken to comply with NZECP 34:2001; iv) Establish a specific height for clearance over a State highway, if necessary; v) Describe the details of the on-going access arrangements as required by Condition 9(e)(vi); vi) Develop measures to control induced and transferred voltages and earth potential rise where conductive material is within 8 metres of the transmission line support structures; vii) Confirm procedures set out for the management of construction vibration included in the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan required by Condition 28); viii) Identify areas where additional management measures are necessary such as fencing or hurdles; ix) Confirm timing for any outage that may be necessary; x) Confirm measures to manage the effects of dust that may damage the National Grid transmission lines; and xi) Confirm details of contractor training, and TPR’s involvement in that training, for those working within 8 metres of the transmission line support structures or within the maximum extent of conductor swing (at maximum operating temperature). Ballantrae Hill Country Research Station T3 Ballantrae Research Station and Fertiliser Trial Management Plan a) The road construction footprint (inclusive of a 10-metre buffer from the edge of any cut or fill) must avoid the Big Hill (HFHF - High Fertiliser High Fertiliser) farmlet as shown on Figure 1 of the Statement of evidence of Alec Donald Mackay of AgResearch Ltd dated 15 March 2019, unless AgResearch provides written approval for the footprint to impinge on that farmlet. b) Where the road construction footprint (inclusive of a 10-metre buffer from the edge of any cut or fill) traverses Ballantrae Station as shown on Land Requirement Plans LR-06 and FR-07 dated October 2018 it must be positioned in a manner that minimises as far as is reasonably practicable the elimination of existing frame sites (permanent field measurement sampling sites) located within the Pylon East (HFNF - High Fertiliser No Fertiliser); Pylon West (LFLF – Low Fertiliser Low Fertiliser) and Pylon Centre (LFNF – Low Fertiliser No Fertiliser) farmlets as shown on Figure 1 of the Statement of evidence of Alec Donald Mackay of AgResearch Ltd dated 15 March 2019, unless AgResearch provides written approval for existing frame sites to be eliminated. c) There must be no spoil sites or large-scale erosion and sediment control structures (such as sediment settling ponds or wetlands) located outside of the road construction footprint within the farmlets referenced in clause (a) and (b) above, as shown on Figure 1 of the Statement of evidence of Alec Donald Mackay of AgResearch Ltd dated 15 March 2019, unless AgResearch Ltd provides written approval for them to be located outside the road construction footprint. d) Prior to undertaking any enabling or construction works activities within the Ballantrae Station site, the Requiring Authority must prepare a Ballantrae Research Station and Fertiliser Trial Management Plan in consultation with AgResearch Ltd. e) The objective of the Ballantrae Research Station and Fertiliser Trial Management Plan is to give effect to Conditions (a) to (c) above and to further avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the Project on Ballantrae Station’s farming operations and the current long-term fertiliser and grazing trial. f) The Ballantrae Research Station and Fertiliser Trial Management Plan must, as a minimum: i) Delineate the road construction footprint within the Station; ii) Where practicable, provide for the reinstatement of all eliminated frame sites in a suitable alternative location; iii) Set out the measures to be implemented to maintain stock water, site access and the ability to move stock within and between farmlets during, and following, the completion of enabling or construction works; iv) Set out measures to be implemented to manage construction noise to minimise disruption to grazing stock; v) Set out measures to be implemented to minimise dust from enabling and construction works impacting on the long-term fertiliser and grazing trial farmlets; vi) Set out site security and safety measures that minimise the risk of stock rustling and manage risks to farm staff as a result of enabling or construction works activities; vii) Document a monitoring programme that:

Page 84 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

A) obtains soil and pasture attribute data from all 72 existing frame sites to provide a 2019 data baseline that is comparable to historical monitoring data from those frame sites; B) obtains annually soil and pasture attribute data that is comparable to historical monitoring data from all frame sites that will remain post-road construction, both during construction and for five years following the completion of construction works, to enable the effects of the operation of the road to be assessed. g) The Requiring Authority must undertake (or engage AgResearch to undertake) the monitoring programme required under Condition T3(f)(vii) above and provide the results to AgResearch on an annual basis. h) The Requiring Authority must undertake (or engage AgResearch to undertake) a survey of a statistically significant representative group of North Island hill country sheep and beef farmers to determine that sector’s future soil attribute, pasture production and farm sustainability research priorities so as to enable AgResearch Ltd to determine what form of replacement research site would be appropriate in the event of a suitably qualified and experienced expert engaged by the Requiring Authority determining that the long term fertiliser trial at Ballantrae Station ceases to be viable on a farming system basis as a result of the new road’s construction. i) The survey under (h) must be designed in collaboration with AgResearch Ltd and must be undertaken and the results documented in a report that is provided to AgResearch Ltd prior to the opening of the new road. QEII National Trust Open Space Covenants T4 Outline Plan – QEII National Trust open space covenants a) Where an Outline Plan(s) describes works within the areas subject to QEII Trust open space covenants (shown on Plan C-06 dated October 2018), the Requiring Authority must consult with the QEII National Trust for the purpose of designing and constructing the Project to avoid impacts where possible and, where avoidance is not possible, minimise impacts, as far as practicable, on the QEII Trust open space values of the area subject to the covenant. b) As a minimum, the Outline Plan must: i) set out details of the consultation undertaken under clause (a) and any measures taken by the Requiring Authority to respond to matters raised; ii) demonstrate how the extent of enabling or construction works on the site is limited (including by Condition 9(e)) in order to avoid, or minimise as far as practicable, impacts on the QEII Trust open space values; and iii) describe any restoration that may be proposed (including as part of the Landscape Management Plan required by Condition 17 or the Ecological Management Plan required by Condition 24).

Operational Conditions (applying as relevant within each District)

Noise and property 41. Road surfacing a) Prior to the opening of the new road, a low noise road surface must be laid on: i) State Highway 3 Napier Road between Cambridge Avenue and the Manawatū River; and ii) Vogel Street in Woodville; and iii) The main alignment from the eastern roundabout extending at least 2.0 kilometres to the west of the roundabout; or iv) Instead of (iii) concrete barriers must be provided in order to control sound levels at the dwellings at 49807 State Highway 3 and 75 Hope Road, Woodville existing on 31 October 2018. 42. Traffic separation a) Traffic lanes of the roundabouts must be more than 100 metres from dwellings existing on 31 October 2018; and b) Traffic lanes must be more than 200 metres from the dwellings at 49807 State Highway 3 and 75 Hope Road, Woodville existing on 31 October 2018. 43. Lot 2 DP 351133 landscaping Within 12 months of the opening of the new road, the Requiring Authority must consult with the owners of Lot 2 DP 351133 to develop and implement a plan for planting along the southern boundary of this property to screen views of the road. 44. Post-construction review a) Within 12 months of the opening of the new road, the Requiring Authority must undertake a post- construction review in accordance with the NZTA’s ‘Specification for Noise Mitigation’ (NZTA P40:2014) that includes:

Page 85 of 89

Schedule A NZTA Notice of Requirement Recommended Conditions Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua Highway

i) noise modelling; ii) site inspection of road surfaces or concrete barriers provided by Condition 41; and iii) noise measurements at the PPFs located at 49807 State Highway 3, 49846 State Highway 3, 75 Hope Road, Woodville and 1213 Fitzherbert East Road, Ashhurst to verify the acoustics model, subject to access being provided. b) If the post-construction review concludes that the sound levels exceed the NZS 6806:2010 ‘Acoustics – Road-traffic noise – New and altered road’ Category A criteria for new roads (at 49807 State Highway 3 and 75 Hope Road) and altered roads (at 49846 State Highway 3 and 1213 Fitzherbert East Road, Ashhurst), the Requiring Authority must, in consultation with the respective property owners, provide further noise mitigation to reduce noise levels to meet the Category A criteria (subject to reasonable access to allow any mitigation to be implemented). c) The noise modelling and the details of any mitigation must be provided to the Council(s). Lighting 45. Operational lighting Lighting must be designed, maintained and operated to comply with AS/NZS 1158 Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces. Network Utilities and Infrastructure 46. Written consent under section 176 of the RMA - Te Āpiti Wind Farm The Requiring Authority must not require Meridian to seek written consent under section 176 of the RMA for work that can occur in accordance with the resource consent for the Te Āpiti wind farm (dated 3 September 2003) where that work does not encroach on, or impact on, the construction or operation of the State highway. To the extent that written approval is required, this Condition constitutes written approval. Ongoing monitoring and management 47 a) Notwithstanding Condition 6, any monitoring and management measures required by the following management plans must remain in place once construction of the Project is complete: i) Condition 19 Planting Management Plan; ii) Condition 24 Ecological Management Plan; iii) Condition 30 Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring and Management Plan; iv) Condition PN3 Western Car Park Reinstatement Management Plan; and v) Condition T3 Ballantrae Research Station and Fertiliser Trial Management Plan.

Page 86 of 89